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) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
5371
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:08:30 -
[1] - Quote
While the current sovereignty system worked fine for many years, we see the need for a fundamental overhaul.
We are excited to present the plans for a new sov system coming early this summer including: 1) No more grinding through hitpoints 2) Meaningful combat events distributed over the whole constellation 3) Space activity results in defensive bonus 4) Designated daily "Prime time" for alliances when their structures become vulnerable
Read all about this new sov system, the mechanics and the fine details in CCP Fozzie's latest blog Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two!
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager
|
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1645
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:12:55 -
[2] - Quote
DEVBLOG POSTING STATUS: DONE
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
991
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:13:50 -
[3] - Quote
Alright ladies, gird your loins....
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1683
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:14:37 -
[4] - Quote
Brb
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
521
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:15:08 -
[5] - Quote
#reserved |
Javajunky
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
106
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:19:56 -
[6] - Quote
I'm going to say I'm somewhat disappointed, but I shall return to comment after I go throw up. |
Ulduari
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:20:35 -
[7] - Quote
Wall of text, worth a read... must... prevail... |
Beidorion eldwardan
Corporation Danmark Tactical Narcotics Team
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:24:01 -
[8] - Quote
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OG GOD
kill that damn .gif on the dev blog ( phase 2 )
are you trying to cause someone to have a seizure |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
424
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:24:22 -
[9] - Quote
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 |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1645
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:24:26 -
[10] - Quote
Whatever the result of the changes is, it is probably going to heavily affect EVE Online for the years to come.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
|
|
|
CCP Logibro
C C P C C P Alliance
830
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:24:38 -
[11] - Quote
Please remember that spam posts are not permitted. This includes posts such as "First" and "Reserved".
Quote: 13. Spamming is prohibited.
Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to [insert other game name]GÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post, or the practice of GÇ£thread necromancyGÇ¥ which involved bumping of old threads for no justifiable reason.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro
|
|
Literally Space Moses
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:26:33 -
[12] - Quote
You made sov harder to hold (good) but didn't give any additional incentive to actually hold it (very bad),
Seriously, you keep giving nullsec the stick, when is the carrot going to come?
#T2013
|
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:27:06 -
[13] - Quote
This is why Devs should have adult supervision.
To recap:
1st phase we made it impossible to project force.
2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1024
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:27:55 -
[14] - Quote
training my afk campers with infomorph
the second local empties you make a timer )))
but why would you show up to that timer
sov itself still sucks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Steijn
Quay Industries
642
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:28:32 -
[15] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.
awww diddums. |
Cheyennes
Evil Doers
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:28:50 -
[16] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:This is why Devs should have adult supervision.
To recap:
1st phase we made it impossible to project force.
2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.
Brilliant |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
779
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:30:32 -
[17] - Quote
I wanted to say that I love the temporary freeport idea during capture. I think it gives smaller entities that really tried to take things a chance to pull out some critical assets. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1683
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:30:50 -
[18] - Quote
The first thing going that jumps to my mind is that defensive bonuses should be based on long term data, so that nobody calls for a mining or ratting cta to make a system harder to capture.
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
Igor Nappi
Perkone Caldari State
99
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:33:04 -
[19] - Quote
I'm a bit disappointed that formal sov wasn't removed altogether.
Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
|
Phaezen Outamon
Brotherhood of Wolves Project.Mayhem.
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:33:19 -
[20] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:The first thing going that jumps to my mind is that defensive bonuses should be based on long term data, so that nobody calls for a mining or ratting cta to make a system harder to capture.
Well mining and ratting ships in system also equate to more opportunities for active pvp when there is a contest over a system |
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1137
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:34:07 -
[21] - Quote
The primetime is cool, the spreading sov defence across the constellation is nice, the defensive bonus too.
Super heavy weighting of mining bonuses to retaining system control.. not so much.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
426
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:34:40 -
[22] - Quote
My initial thought is that this hugely, hugely favors attackers. Anyone without massive support from allies will get instantly steamrolled.
In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon. |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
963
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:35:24 -
[23] - Quote
So how does this fix the problem with blobs |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1024
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:35:59 -
[24] - Quote
also rip supers LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
916
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:36:09 -
[25] - Quote
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~ |
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:37:04 -
[26] - Quote
Need to read this far more closely, but my initial reactions are:
1. I don't see how this helps the little guy take and hold sov space. If anything, it seems to make it even easier for existing sov holders to hold and keep their space. Heck, the one nifty thing about these proposed changes - the Entosis Link, which could be used by little guys - is near on worthless if the only time you can attack something is during their prime time, and NOT during YOUR prime time.
2. I don't see occupancy effects as we've long been hoping and praying for... i.e., the more you use space, the stronger your hold over the space, the less you use space, the less you own it, eventually leading to sov dropping from lack of use.
3. DETEST the "prime time" concept. Will expand more after I cool off over reading that, but it's pretty much screwed any advantage of having Australian-time-zone strong corps in nullsec. This gives HUGE advantage to the existing blocs. It also takes away any chance of small groups that are active in opponent's low-activity time zones the possibility of attacking and taking over someone else's sov. It takes away any opportunity for two large groups that are not in the same time zone to ever fight on a meaningful level.
4. DO like - in fact, love - the freeport bit.
Will write/edit after I re-read and think this over more.
GG
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Code2200
Guardians Descendants LOADED-DICE
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:37:07 -
[27] - Quote
Not what I was hoping for. Feel like once Time Dilation starts for big battles it will just be a pain in the ass. This should be looked over again!! Sorry CCP. |
ORIAN345
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:37:28 -
[28] - Quote
great work |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:38:17 -
[29] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:This is why Devs should have adult supervision.
To recap:
1st phase we made it impossible to project force.
2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.
Oh no they made it so you actually have to defend your stuff yourself instead of calling Papa Goon to come rescue you! THE HORROR! |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1155
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:44:25 -
[30] - Quote
Busy at work. But my preliminary response after reading the preamble and seeing "Each Sovereignty structure will be able to operate independently from other Sov structures" is...
Thank you for listening!
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
|
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:44:41 -
[31] - Quote
If you think Reavers were bad... you just made it very hard for any casual alliance to hold sov in the face of a dedicated core of folks from one of the blocs dropping sov simply to grief.
Remember that larger alliances have the ability to organize and sustain action better than most smaller ones. One outcome of these changes may very well be large areas of wasteland that is regularly mowed of sov 'just cause'. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2042
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:46:10 -
[32] - Quote
are those numbers for entosis module right? 20km for T1 and 25okm for T2? |
Traiori
New Eden Renegades This can only end well
207
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:46:19 -
[33] - Quote
Hate the idea of prime time.
It forces every little group in the game to fight at a maximum disadvantage, because we can't organise it so that timers are during a bad moment for the opponent. Yes, timers come at a terrible time for us as small groups but you can normally work around that to some extent. Enforcing a
It makes every alliance have to consolidate into a particular timezone because, for instance, you now can't have your EUTZ fighting timers at 1900 and your USTZ fighting timers at 0000 because the fights only happen during "primetime". Even my little 80 man alliance has a "primetime" longer than that. I would do it the other way round: I would select a "quiet period" of up to 8 hours during which structures are not vulnerable.
Though I can hear the complaints of every russian as they discover that their offensive timers are always at 3am... |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
426
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:46:28 -
[34] - Quote
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:If you think Reavers were bad... you just made it very hard for any casual alliance to hold sov in the face of a dedicated core of folks from one of the blocs dropping sov simply to grief.
Remember that larger alliances have the ability to organize and sustain action better than most smaller ones. One outcome of these changes may very well be large areas of wasteland that is regularly mowed of sov 'just cause'. yeah, anyone who does not bend the knee will be summarily wiped out
brb getting to work on some sufficiently degrading oaths of fealty |
Karbowiak
4M-CORP Black Legion.
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:46:37 -
[35] - Quote
Am i the only one wishing that we'd get the old pos warfare sov system back? |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
649
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:46:47 -
[36] - Quote
This design is one of most hilariously amazing things to come out of CCP. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
653
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:46:55 -
[37] - Quote
7000 words wasn't a joke, here goes two hours.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:47:08 -
[38] - Quote
Freeport Mode... Gives the aggressor docking rights and turn every battle into high-sec station bullshit.
Goal 6... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm sure Goons will only bring 2-300 people instead of system crushing 2-3000.
Entosis Link -turned EVE into some twisted king of the hill system where sheer number of Links win.
CCP, give machariels a bonus to juggling and the middle lane.
|
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
188
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:47:09 -
[39] - Quote
You mentioned that the Entosis link will have low fitting requirements, and not disable propulsion while active.
What is there to prevent massive hordes of T2 entosis fitted interceptors from completely swarming an area and putting entosis links on everything?
All the ceptor has to do is stay within a 250km bubble of the objective, and even if hostiles show up, you just have to MWD around for 2 minutes. If the enemy is trying to entosis your objective, do the same.
What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours? You've made sov easier to take, but that works both ways.
Any small group that slights a big group can expect all their space reinforced in less than 30 minutes. By interceptors.
So the future of Sov warfare is inteceptor with sov lasers, slippery petes to kill interceptors, and absolutely no fleet on fleet fighting.
An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
653
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:47:48 -
[40] - Quote
Karbowiak wrote:Am i the only one wishing that we'd get the old pos warfare sov system back?
Yes. No more structures!
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
|
GOB the Magician
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:47:53 -
[41] - Quote
Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this. |
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
917
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:48:35 -
[42] - Quote
CCP, can you please address the point to living in null sec? I mean my logic is that because there is more risk to living in null sec there should be more reward, but as it stands this is not the case. Do you have any plans to address the gaping goatse-sized hole in the risk vs. reward proprotion of nullsec vs say high sec?
Thanks.
Yours in christ,
Aryndel Vyst Director of Personnel Operations and Logistics Goonswarm Federation |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
426
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:49:23 -
[43] - Quote
Karbowiak wrote:Am i the only one wishing that we'd get the old pos warfare sov system back? no, i liked that and it was significantly better in a lot of ways than this or dominion
it was completely broken by AOE doomsdays protecting cynojammers, but that's gotten fixed, and fuel blocks exist now |
Karbowiak
4M-CORP Black Legion.
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:51:30 -
[44] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Karbowiak wrote:Am i the only one wishing that we'd get the old pos warfare sov system back? no, i liked that and it was significantly better in a lot of ways than this or dominion it was completely broken by AOE doomsdays protecting cynojammers, but that's gotten fixed, and fuel blocks exist now
True story.
Plus with the POS system, you could take a system in about a day, instead of spending a week taking on system. Yes you had to steamroll a system with lots of dreads, but compared to the current system, or the proposed one, you atleast had a light at the end of the tunnel.
Meh, whatever.. |
hejsan stolly
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:51:41 -
[45] - Quote
Looking forward to it. I-¦m glad you are changing things CCP. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:52:06 -
[46] - Quote
if you thought dominion was complicated, wait till you read this.
Also, the entosis link gameplay is really really bad.
The 4 hour vulnerable per day thing is also bad, your essentially making it so we have to run 4 hour long cta's which is longer than most people have available. I think instead of permanent vulnrability it needs to be triggered somehow, maybe with the sbus doing a 30 minute online timer or something?
TLDR, very complex, entoiss link gameplay is just poor |
Canenald
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:53:40 -
[47] - Quote
Capture events sound too much like capture the flag PVP maps in theme park MMOs. Please come up with something else. |
JohnMonty
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
34
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:54:40 -
[48] - Quote
"Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges,"
Best line in the whole thing lol |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:55:30 -
[49] - Quote
On a serious note, anyone care to speculate on how PL is going to get fights now? |
Yourmoney Mywallet
Jita Institute of Applied Monetary Manipulation
357
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:55:53 -
[50] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.
EvilweaselFinance wrote:In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon. Best dev blog evvarrr. |
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
627
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:56:12 -
[51] - Quote
This? This is it? This is what we've waited several YEARS for? Are you ******* serious?
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
924
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:56:21 -
[52] - Quote
JohnMonty wrote:"Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges,"
Best line in the whole thing lol
Except ~~~~~~jump fatigue~~~~~ aka ~~~~~emergent gameplay~~~~~ |
vanflyheight13
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:56:54 -
[53] - Quote
Prime time effectively divides alliances by timezone.
A line member with interests in PVP only cannot directly benefit his or her alliance's defense unless they operate within the 4 hour window specified.
I strongly suggest CCP reconsiders the importance of this 4 hour window before implementing it. |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
5371
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:58:12 -
[54] - Quote
Rowells wrote:are those numbers for entosis module right? 20km for T1 and 25okm for T2? Yes, that are the numbers right now ... but as the blog says, everything is still in an early stage and we love to hear your feedback and reasons.
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager
|
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
429
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:58:40 -
[55] - Quote
how is this for our upcoming oaths of fealty from any non-aligned entity:
I, [insert your name here], pledge my undying fealty to Mittani, the King of Space, asking nothing but that he considers not squashing me out of nullsec like a bug because he has a hangover and wants to hurt someone but, recognizing my complete inability to do anything about it if he so chooses because nobody can stand against a motivated attacker, recognize that my existence in nullsec is purely at his sufferance and that even this pledge of loyalty only tips the scales somewhat in favor of my being allowed to exist. to further tip the scales in favor of my potential survival, i promise an unending stream of gifts, praise, and reaffirmations of my abject submission in the most ingrating position of surrender possible.
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:58:52 -
[56] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:JohnMonty wrote:"Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges,"
Best line in the whole thing lol Except ~~~~~~jump fatigue~~~~~ aka ~~~~~emergent gameplay~~~~~
I haven't built up more than 1d 18h of jump fatigue since it came out, and that was when I hopped across 4 mids in 1.5 hours to move my carrier into a wormhole. If you're getting more than that more often maybe you have more space than you can effectively use, which is the entire point of these changes. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:59:39 -
[57] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:CCP, can you please address the point to living in null sec? I mean my logic is that because there is more risk to living in null sec there should be more reward, but as it stands this is not the case. Do you have any plans to address the gaping goatse-sized hole in the risk vs. reward proprotion of nullsec vs say high sec?
Thanks.
Yours in christ,
Aryndel Vyst Director of Personnel Operations and Logistics Goonswarm Federation
It is sometimes even safer than highsec or lowsec. |
Cheyennes
Evil Doers
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:00:09 -
[58] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Rowells wrote:are those numbers for entosis module right? 20km for T1 and 25okm for T2? Yes, that are the numbers right now ... but as the blog says, everything is still in an early stage and we love to hear your feedback and reasons.
You may love to hear it, and You may even love the reasoning... but you have yet to ever listen to the player base.
so many good ideas out there but none of the common sense ones ever prevail. |
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:00:27 -
[59] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Rowells wrote:are those numbers for entosis module right? 20km for T1 and 25okm for T2? Yes, that are the numbers right now ... but as the blog says, everything is still in an early stage and we love to hear your feedback and reasons.
yeah, thanks for adding a new map to DOTA... the eve map. Can Drifters be minions? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1027
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:01:05 -
[60] - Quote
when are capitals getting nerfed |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1683
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:01:11 -
[61] - Quote
a few points:
1. Sov itself.
So, it's now easier to capture a completely worthless piece of space. Space isn't empty because it's hard to capture. Space is empty because it sucks.
2. Hardcoded primetime:
Bad. Very bad. AUtz. It also removes a lot of opportunity for human error.
2. Entosis Links must come from the "owner" or an attacker, no such thing as friends of the owner:
I just don't have words for how bad this is. Can't hire mercs, can't bring friends, can't do a lot of other stuff. All those are interesting opportunities in the grand scheme of things that are getting nerfed into oblivion. And there are tons of reasons why you don't want everybody and their mother in the same alliance.
4. Entosis Links themselves
Why make it a highslot item ? Why not an implant ? Highslot items just gimp fittings in an unneccesary way.
Disabling remote assistance on ships using them is ... dumb ?
5. Entosis capture mechanic
Call it hitpoints, call it entosis, call it whatever. Doesn't matter. Grind them, get bacon. Not fun.
5. Freeport Stations:
We asked for destructible Stations. Consequence. That kind of stuff. Not Freeports.
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:01:35 -
[62] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:While the current sovereignty system worked fine for many years, we see the need for a fundamental overhaul. We are excited to present the plans for a new sov system coming early this summer including: 1) No more grinding through hitpoints 2) Meaningful combat events distributed over the whole constellation 3) Space activity results in defensive bonus 4) Designated daily "Prime time" for alliances when their structures become vulnerable Read all about this new sov system, the mechanics and the fine details in CCP Fozzie's latest blog Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two!
5) still not compensating for the human behavioural triggers 6) still not compensating for the pitfalls of "volume > all" 7) still not useful as a meaningful or marketable attraction / favour pitch compared to open ended and/or procedural universes / systems
Also
8) you're really not building on strengths or potential strengths. This pattern of building down towards set mechanical models of interaction certainly looks nice on paper, but there's probably reasons why nobody at CCP is extrapolating that as a trend model (and why the one who did left the company, I am sorry to say) .. because if you did, you'd realise that you are tying down the product to low-maintenance mode in preparation for a very different venture model (the last three times CCP tried such a change it went the same subtle top-down road and each time it resulted in extremely expensive failire) and in general for a move away from exactly the kind of open ended emergent dynamic gameplay which made EVE a commercial succes in the first place. |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:01:42 -
[63] - Quote
GOB the Magician wrote:Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this.
I can think of several:
You enjoy living there You enjoy living with the people there you live with You enjoy fighting your neighbors nearby
If that isn't the case for you maybe you're better of in highsec. Or renting. |
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:02:26 -
[64] - Quote
Some of the points are interesting, but you keep on turning EVE Online into Newbie online, interceptor online, cruiser online and laughing on the face of veterans and newcomers who make actual sacrifices (focusing characters, buying characters to improve doable things). You're showing disrespect to the people who's been paying your salaries for years and this is not gonna end well. No, running around a constellation in ****** ship is not funny, maybe it's funny on the first year you play eve, is not funny when you saved for capital pilots, for capital ships, sacrifice a holder and so on.
What the heck is this thing of running around a constellation to capture nodes? I'm starting to think that CCP offices are based in Amsterdam instead of Reykjavik. And, basically, with the Command Nodes around the constelation-thing you've damned capital ships to the darkest abysm on the space to never be used again. Useless enormous pieces of metal, at least carriers can farm isk and help us save money to get back to highsec before cancelling almost all our accounts.
The whole plan is so sad, childish and show's in such a big way how dc'd developers are from the current game that I'm gonna write down this post in a txt to come here and laugh (at your egos)/cry (at the game I love) when it is too late to save it.
TL;DR: the command nodes idea is the worst idea I've ever seen by a developers team in a single game in the 19 years I've been playing videogames. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1138
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:05:13 -
[65] - Quote
As a US player in a alliance slanted towards EU for active players, I would just like to say:
"Thanks CCP for stripping me of opportunity to participate in defensive timers for my alliance, now I can instead just sit around and leech off my alliance without having any chance or obligation in participating in defense OTHER THAN RATTING IN DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS"
It's so refreshing to know that not only will I never be around to stop an enemy from fighting for the initial timer, but that 100% of the time, it will always come out in a period of time I won't be there for.
Thanks CCP! |
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
480
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:05:27 -
[66] - Quote
That flashing crap under the first paragraph was so incredibly annoying that I had kill it with ad-block; since human eye is hard-wired to attract on flashy moving things do you have any idea how incredibly annoying it was to even attempt to read that text with that thing constantly whirling and flashing on screen ? |
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
925
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:05:43 -
[67] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:GOB the Magician wrote:Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this. I can think of several: You enjoy living there You enjoy living with the people there you live with You enjoy fighting your neighbors nearby If that isn't the case for you maybe you're better of in highsec. Or renting.
You're not allowed to say these things unless you've actually taken sov on your own, or been able to defend sov from someone else. |
RogueHunteer
Perkone Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:06:12 -
[68] - Quote
looks niCE! |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1026
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:06:32 -
[69] - Quote
buff sov benefits to compensate
+20% mining yield per industry index +20% anomaly cash yield per military index
or some ****
i say this as someone who has never lived in sov and has harassed lots and lots, there needs to be a buff to people living there if there's gonna be such a huge buff to me and mine
i mean why wouldnt you just do lvl 4s and mine in highsec even more than people do already if sov is getting harder to hold
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
628
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:06:36 -
[70] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Rowells wrote:are those numbers for entosis module right? 20km for T1 and 25okm for T2? Yes, that are the numbers right now ... but as the blog says, everything is still in an early stage and we love to hear your feedback and reasons. I cannot even give you proper feedback and reasons because I'm too angry to articulate my thoughts.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
|
Cheyennes
Evil Doers
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:07:07 -
[71] - Quote
EUTZ can play laser tag, USTZ and AUTZ will play hide-and-seek |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
432
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:09:27 -
[72] - Quote
i just checked, literally the only people praising this design are people in npc corps |
RogueHunteer
Perkone Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:09:33 -
[73] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:Allright guys, since they literally have an AFK cloaker in every one of our systems, we can't rat/min to build indicies.
directorbot: RATTING/MINING CTA @ 2100, Ishtars>tengus>ravens>skiffs
*** This was a broadcast from the_mittani to all-all at 2014-10-25 04:55:57.479999 EVE, replies are not monitored ****
I understand your feeling on this topic, and point is their no risk for cloaking any were! and no reward here and needs to be address. I'm sure ccp will find away to address this like everything else in the game. Person will have to keep warping every 5 minutes or face to be found type thing. No idea but in do time. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:09:50 -
[74] - Quote
also, did it not occur to you that sov war is now basically a giant frigate fleet, with little or no reason to use anything larger, due to guns playing no part in it, just mobility? |
Cheyennes
Evil Doers
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:10:02 -
[75] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:i just checked, literally the only people praising this design are people in npc corps
Theyre all Test Alts
|
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:10:10 -
[76] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:Rowells wrote:are those numbers for entosis module right? 20km for T1 and 25okm for T2? Yes, that are the numbers right now ... but as the blog says, everything is still in an early stage and we love to hear your feedback and reasons. I cannot even give you proper feedback and reasons because I'm too angry to articulate my thoughts.
Don't be mad. Remember the old pitfall excuses the last times CCP came up with grand goals to magically solve the consequencies of venture goals setting hard limits for the real devs to work within :P Haters gonna hate & all that.
Look on the bright side though, every goal translates into a distinct focus of dumbing things down, prioritising mechanical gameplay instead of that old tedious immersion crap, making it cheaper to maintain - and extremely easy to throw in some catchy marketing with in order to slowly boil the frogs.
|
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:10:47 -
[77] - Quote
I have one major concern about this: I love how it forces the fight to be spread out to multiple systems, multiple-grid battles are something that should exist more in the game. However, unless I misunderstood something wouldn't this make it harder for a smaller alliance to hold sov if they want to own only a single system?
Greygal wrote:3. DETEST the "prime time" concept. Will expand more after I cool off over reading that, but it's pretty much screwed any advantage of having Australian-time-zone strong corps in nullsec. This gives HUGE advantage to the existing blocs. It also takes away any chance of small groups that are active in opponent's low-activity time zones the possibility of attacking and taking over someone else's sov. It takes away any opportunity for two large groups that are not in the same time zone to ever fight on a meaningful level. It's not 100% clear in the dev blog, but the section about the command nodes doesn't mention prime time whatsoever. Probably just need prime time to get to the command node part, then the other time zones can contribute to the struggle over the nodes.
Angry Mustache wrote:What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours? Prime time. If your structures are only vulnerable during that block of time, you can make sure you have people to defend it during that block of time. Also, the fitting on the entosis link might be more than an interceptor can take. They also can't warp while the link is active, so you could burn after them with other interceptors.
That said, I think 2 minutes and 250km is a too strong for the T2 link. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
304
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:11:17 -
[78] - Quote
Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
4863
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:11:33 -
[79] - Quote
It seems like this approach is reasonable, though the proposed timers seem really short to me.
I do wonder about doing things like this without also proving some incentive to actually hold sov at the same time (or before the sov mechanics changes). At the very least, CCP should be publishing a little more future roadmap details, like for example is a reward rebalance even planned?
CSM 7 Secretary
CSM 6 Alternate Delegate
@two_step_eve on Twitter
My Blog
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:11:57 -
[80] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:GOB the Magician wrote:Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this. I can think of several: You enjoy living there You enjoy living with the people there you live with You enjoy fighting your neighbors nearby If that isn't the case for you maybe you're better of in highsec. Or renting. You're not allowed to say these things unless you've actually taken sov on your own, or been able to defend sov from someone else.
We fought off PL for a month instead of negotiating a NIP with them, does that count? |
|
Crysantos Callahan
Control-Space DARKNESS.
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:12:18 -
[81] - Quote
Not sure what to think about this yet, I like the complete overhaul, but I do see a few huge question marks above my head.
1. different TZ alliances - I don't see any chance to win meaningful sov space of another alliance that lives mostly in another TZ 2. supers - don't get me wrong, not a fan of those - but why should people use them at all, unless as entosis link tank 3. station games in freeport mode 4. not sure this system is much easier to grasp than the old one :P 5. Still need more NPC space between certain regions to create easier jump-offs and staging zones
I'll need to read this a few more times and think about possible scenarios. |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:13:08 -
[82] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now.
Maybe they'll make it like triage/siege/bastion where you're immune to electronic warfare while its active. Definitely something worth bringing up. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
432
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:13:08 -
[83] - Quote
Two step wrote:like for example is a reward rebalance even planned?
oh you sweet summer child |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
823
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:13:09 -
[84] - Quote
Can we just bring back the POS grind? I miss the POS grind. Lets just go with POS grind and call it even.
I want to be your representative for CSMX!
Please EVEmail me with any quesitons, comments or concerns you have about myself or EVE.
|
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:13:25 -
[85] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:
We fought off PL for a month instead of negotiating a NIP with them, does that count?
An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.
|
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:13:46 -
[86] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:also, did it not occur to you that sov war is now basically a giant frigate fleet, with little or no reason to use anything larger, due to guns playing no part in it, just mobility? Get some brick-tanked Hictors with those links on the command nodes backed up by some cruisers with good tracking. |
Gonzo Liberace
Sinisters of EVE
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:15:08 -
[87] - Quote
In my opinion "Declaring Time Zone" it's a terrible terrible mechanic. Null sec should be the true sandbox of Eve. |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:16:06 -
[88] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Vigilanta wrote:also, did it not occur to you that sov war is now basically a giant frigate fleet, with little or no reason to use anything larger, due to guns playing no part in it, just mobility? Get some brick-tanked Hictors with those links on the command nodes backed up by some cruisers with good tracking.
By that you mean Tengus and Eagles, because nothing else can track ceptors at 240.
Meanwhile they can use Slippery Petes to kill your Hictor that you can't rep.
An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.
|
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:16:21 -
[89] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now. Maybe they'll make it like triage/siege/bastion where you're immune to electronic warfare while its active. Definitely something worth bringing up. They said the ship can't receive remote assistance while it's active. I assume that'll be the same as triage, siege and bastion. |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:16:36 -
[90] - Quote
Two step wrote:It seems like this approach is reasonable, though the proposed timers seem really short to me.
I do wonder about doing things like this without also proving some incentive to actually hold sov at the same time (or before the sov mechanics changes). At the very least, CCP should be publishing a little more future roadmap details, like for example is a reward rebalance even planned?
It's only reasonable without extrapolating consequences for the behavioural tendencies the environment of EVE itself promotes and requires.
It's a roadmap towards the mechanical, low maintenance and low key second decade. A few years late, but that's nothing new.
Also, it's absolutely ironic to see what spills over now and from where. Advocate stakeholders hurray.
|
|
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
5376
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:16:51 -
[91] - Quote
Baneken wrote:That flashing crap under the first paragraph was so incredibly annoying that I had kill it with ad-block; since human eye is hard-wired to attract on flashy moving things do you have any idea how incredibly annoying it was to even attempt to read that text with that thing constantly whirling and flashing on screen ? This animation has been replaced by a still image now that links to the original animation.
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager
|
|
Axe Coldon
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:16:57 -
[92] - Quote
My question for the new sov mechanics, what will happen to Ihub build cost and size? I don't suppose you can make them small enough to fit in a jump freighter? It would have the benefit of allowing smaller alliances an easier path to put them in. And for combat, it puts a very expensive freighter (jf) at risk.
atm unless your system you wish to have an ihub is close to a station, the preferred method is bridge the freighter with a Titan. It you make the iHUB 350k or so..then a Jump Freighter could be used instead.
Likewise I would like to see all the upgrades installed fit in a jump freighter. People complain jf pilots take no risks and only jump to station. If you make this change..then additional risks will be taken with jf by those not large or rich enough to own titans.
No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
628
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:17:01 -
[93] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:Can we just bring back the POS grind? I miss the POS grind. Lets just go with POS grind and call it even. How about we just ******* trash the idea of sov rebalance altogether. It's broken, but what was worse about it was the fact that nobody wanted to do it anymore while CCP held the impending rebalance over our heads for the past 2-3 years.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:17:22 -
[94] - Quote
2 minutes to start the capture on t2, then and additional timer based on index to complete. and it appears that you have to maintain the module activation and lock.
so this seems very reasonable. bringing many links is still helpful as it gives you continual progress if the defender has none of their own, and they just are trying to shoot or harass you away.
similarly for defender multiple links can keep paused.
also i did note that if you start capture on a structure it doesn't degrade to 0 without a defender using a link on it, and if there is progress it remains vulnerable until it is forced to 0 by defender or capture is completed. this is important as it means the "Prime time" only matters if you show up to fix structures, otherwise the structure can remain vulnerable indefinately. |
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:17:39 -
[95] - Quote
Almost forgot that:
/when/ Fatigue + constellation-wide sovops=1 Capitalshipsvalue=0
Just for you to know. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
628
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:18:19 -
[96] - Quote
iP0D wrote:Also, it's absolutely ironic to see what spills over now and from where. Advocate stakeholders hurray.
At this point I feel like I should just tag every CSM and ex-CSM member with "shill".
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:19:49 -
[97] - Quote
I don't do/like SOV but even to me it looks re-tarded...
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
Red Teufel
Mafia Redux Feign Disorder
430
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:19:54 -
[98] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:As a US player in a alliance slanted towards EU for active players, I would just like to say:
"Thanks CCP for stripping me of opportunity to participate in defensive timers for my alliance, now I can instead just sit around and leech off my alliance without having any chance or obligation in participating in defense OTHER THAN RATTING IN DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS"
It's so refreshing to know that not only will I never be around to stop an enemy from fighting for the initial timer, but that 100% of the time, it will always come out in a period of time I won't be there for.
Thanks CCP!
Good news for you is that I can assume it will be like poco bashing. This also only involves sov not PoS's. And hey even better news maybe you should break away from your blob and form your own group. |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:21:15 -
[99] - Quote
Will notifications go out like they do now? Will the entire alliance get a mail that something of theirs is under attack so they can dispatch a fleet to go defend it? Or will it get RF'd and then we get notifications about RF status and the like? |
Current Habit
Get LP or Die Trying
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:21:33 -
[100] - Quote
AUTZ went from one of the most important and war-deciding elements to being useless sov-wise. I bet they're gonna love that. |
|
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
436
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:21:46 -
[101] - Quote
Quick ninja read whilst at work.
- Thank goodness defensive SBU'ing appears to be a thing of the past.
- I like the fact that the structures can be "mind link attacked" in parallel, rather than the current predictable serial approach that currently exists.
- Overall, the new mechanism makes the battle space much more granular, rather than the predictable series of set piece battles that currently are the norm.
- At this stage, I'm not really seeing how the new mechanics will encourage a break from the existing mega-coalition meta (blue donut, NIP/NAP fest, call it what you like).
The dev blog really deserves a more intensive reading and I'll certainly be spending at least an hour reading it tonight.
I'l be honest, I was really hoping to see jump bridges bite the dust and inject a little more travel risk into null sec. Furthermore, I was also hoping to see moon mineral collection change to an in-space player activity, rather than remain a passive process behind a huge EHP wall (yeah, let's not bother talking about the useless syphons which are easily detectable via the API). Maybe those changes are for Phase III prehaps?
|
Barbaydos
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:21:52 -
[102] - Quote
RIP AU timezone....
so basically to get any activity in our own timezones we need to join an alliance that corresponds to our main playing times... meaning alliances full of only au or us or eu tz people..... needs more work methinks.
we may as well split nullsec into 3 parts 1 for each TZ and have 4-5 different alliances in each area fight it out.
I like it that CCP is doing something to break nullsec so thats its not so stagnant but the whole prime time vulnerability thing needs to be thrown under a bus.
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1685
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:22:10 -
[103] - Quote
yay, FW without LP
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:23:16 -
[104] - Quote
a note for out of timezone players (from declared prime time)
you still raise indices which makes things easier to defend. you can still help with capture events that are ongoing past prime time. you can be useful attacking other alliances whose prime time aligns with your TZ you can assist allies you can contribute to general logistics you can attrack and reinforces POS and stations services
doesn't seem like nothing to me |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1138
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:23:16 -
[105] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:Anhenka wrote:As a US player in a alliance slanted towards EU for active players, I would just like to say:
"Thanks CCP for stripping me of opportunity to participate in defensive timers for my alliance, now I can instead just sit around and leech off my alliance without having any chance or obligation in participating in defense OTHER THAN RATTING IN DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS"
It's so refreshing to know that not only will I never be around to stop an enemy from fighting for the initial timer, but that 100% of the time, it will always come out in a period of time I won't be there for.
Thanks CCP! Good news for you is that I can assume it will be like poco bashing. This also only involves sov not PoS's. And hey even better news maybe you should break away from your blob and form your own group.
Gee, sucks if I actually like the people I fly with and the place I live in, doesn't it. |
ISD Rontea
ISD RUS
401
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:24:07 -
[106] - Quote
Change SBU BPO to Ensotis link BPO. Is this possible?
ISD Rontea
Vice Admiral
-Æ-+-+-+-+-é-æ-Ç -¦-Ç-â-+-+-ï -+-+ -¦-+-¦-+-+-+-¦-¦-¦-ü-é-¦-+-Ä -ü -+-¦-Ç-+-¦-¦-+-+
Interstellar Services Department
|
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:24:09 -
[107] - Quote
Apart from the GIF, which was poor judgement on the part of CCP in my view Alliances should CSM this one as failure to engage with this proposal is the players only true defense.
Alliances should drop all Sov return to Empire and simply make the game unplayable by camping all trade hubs 'Burn it all' as one of my members just put it to me as in his view with the travel restrictions as they currently are hitting player behavior so severely, investing time and money owning Sov anywhere is going to be a worthless exercise for any Alliance and untenable for most Corporations.
The own nothing, build nothing, plan nothing state this will generate flies directly in the face of the EVE ethos and achieves the console gamer ideal state, Log in, blow everything up, get blown up, log off again, That is going to get very old...VERY quickly.
|
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
347
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:24:19 -
[108] - Quote
I kinda like the sound of things, with condition it is actually well implemented in the end.
I also like the goon tears. Hearing a lot of excited murmur from smaller PvP entities.
After this, there might actually be something to shoot at when roaming in nullsec. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
304
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:24:59 -
[109] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now. Maybe they'll make it like triage/siege/bastion where you're immune to electronic warfare while its active. Definitely something worth bringing up. They said the ship can't receive remote assistance while it's active. I assume that'll be the same as triage, siege and bastion.
I think the idea was that when the Entosis link is active you would become ewar immune similar to how you are in triage/siege/bastion. |
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
930
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:25:09 -
[110] - Quote
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:I kinda like the sound of things, with condition it is actually well implemented in the end.
I also like the goon tears. Hearing a lot of excited murmur from smaller PvP entities.
After this, there might actually be something to shoot at when roaming in nullsec.
If you can't find something to shoot at in nullsec now, you're probably not good at PVP and should stick to faction warfare. Because roams are plentiful and frequent if you care to make the effort to look. |
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
173
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:25:17 -
[111] - Quote
Looks like a well thought out plan to me. Gratz CCP !
Will bring combat back to nullsec on a gigantic scale. Love it ! |
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
239
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:26:21 -
[112] - Quote
Dev Blog wrote:In the new Sovereignty, systems full of active occupants will be vastly easier to defend and control than abandoned ones, bustling empires with a variety of activities will be stronger than AFK ones, and disrupting your enemies everyday activities in their space will help you gain advantages both strategic and economic. More details on how we intend to begin achieving this goal will be discussed later in this blog.
So AFK Cloakers will be a real popular thing now? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
437
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:26:52 -
[113] - Quote
the short answer is that there is no incentive to hold space in this model - it's just too easy for anyone to take it from you. you invest in your space in any way and someone will squash it for funsies. it's insanely overpowered from the attack side, and my guess is that the design team at no point considered "well, why are people going to be here to be attacked in the first place?"
i am sure that the response will be "well someone else will move in!". but then we'll squash them for funsies from either our fortress region or our new home in lowsec because null just isn't worth the effort.
you cannot just make sand castles insanely easy to kick over when there's no motivation to have them. what will happen is nullsec will quickly devolve into an orgy of destruction, which will be used to justify this bad design through ~statistics~ with nary a thought of what happens once that orgy of destruction finishes. that orgy of destruction will only be possible because of the years of sand castles built up under previous systems, and once those are all gone, there won't be any more. but by that point we will have a dev blog full of cherry-picked statistics about how much of a success this is and then years of stagnation that are ignored
well, guess i'll have some fun in the upcoming orgy at the end of the world~~~ |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1737
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:27:43 -
[114] - Quote
Quote:Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot. But will they be high enough to be fitted on ships not smaller than cruisers... because you know why... ceptors.
And yea... primetime.
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:27:45 -
[115] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now. Maybe they'll make it like triage/siege/bastion where you're immune to electronic warfare while its active. Definitely something worth bringing up. They said the ship can't receive remote assistance while it's active. I assume that'll be the same as triage, siege and bastion. I think the idea was that when the Entosis link is active you would become ewar immune similar to how you are in triage/siege/bastion.
that's probably the case if it's literally disallows remote assistance as it likely uses the same code :) |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1687
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:28:07 -
[116] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:As a US player in a alliance slanted towards EU for active players, I would just like to say:
"Thanks CCP for stripping me of opportunity to participate in defensive timers for my alliance, now I can instead just sit around and leech off my alliance without having any chance or obligation in participating in defense OTHER THAN RATTING IN DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS"
It's so refreshing to know that not only will I never be around to stop an enemy from fighting for the initial timer, but that 100% of the time, it will always come out in a period of time I won't be there for.
Thanks CCP!
nEUlli secunda
nulli secundAU
nulli USecunda
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
RogueHunteer
Perkone Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:28:17 -
[117] - Quote
Must say this new systems looks nice and new sov system will make lot of have fun pew pew! nice job ccp! Few things I would like to maybe change on this idea is fact you place to much on IHUB and not lot of the TCU.
I was hoping the TCU would effect the strategic index levels. Since you place the 25% fuel saving with the TCU. Let TCU control the strategic index levels for the STARBASES. Let the IHUB control the upgrades for system. Station is worth on it's own!
|
Anthar Thebess
942
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:29:45 -
[118] - Quote
Hole? I create alliance A , B, C A : refout starting from 9:00 B : refout starting form 11:00 C : refout starting from 12:00
If something is going bad for alliance B , i move my 3000 people to corp B to defend "final timers" , then move them to corp A , to defend something else.
If not corps, i have alts that move between corporation/ alliances.
We need some grace period. In order to use this device for alliance you need to be member for at least 2 weeks?
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
437
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:30:06 -
[119] - Quote
RogueHunteer wrote:Must say this new systems looks nice and new sov system will make lot of have fun pew pew! nice job ccp! Few things I would like to maybe change on this idea is fact you place to much on IHUB and not lot of the TCU.
I was hoping the TCU would effect the strategic index levels. Since you place the 25% fuel saving with the TCU. Let TCU control the strategic index levels for the STARBASES. Let the IHUB control the upgrades for system. Station is worth on it's own!
when you're sockpuppeting posts liking a concept you have to change characters dude, people notice when it's just the same one |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:30:09 -
[120] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:Almost forgot that:
/when/ Fatigue + constellation-wide sovops=1 Capitalshipsvalue=0
Just for you to know.
Can use gates |
|
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
195
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:30:25 -
[121] - Quote
Here's an idea, what if they were battleships only.
It would give battleships a reason to be flown, and not make sov into a giant game of "catch the ceptor"
An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.
|
Hemmo Paskiainen
470
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:30:37 -
[122] - Quote
6 Years too late, and it will probably take another 4 or 5 before before all the Tech-Isk-Poison is out of the system.
Long live the Greyscale!
"Relativity equals time plus momentum: if it can be erased by a single click on a button, would it be worth spending your time?"
|
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:30:54 -
[123] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Gypsien Agittain wrote:Almost forgot that:
/when/ Fatigue + constellation-wide sovops=1 Capitalshipsvalue=0
Just for you to know. Can use gates
^^^
also it's just constellation wide, spread them out ?? |
Anthar Thebess
942
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:31:09 -
[124] - Quote
ISD Rontea wrote:Change SBU BPO to Ensotis link BPO. Is this possible? BPC only from drifters?
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Current Habit
Get LP or Die Trying
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:31:17 -
[125] - Quote
Thank God you released this devblog today, I was seriously worried the number of icons in the top left corner wouldn't rise as steadily as they did in the last six months. This is a great relieve for me and all other icon-loving people. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
630
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:31:33 -
[126] - Quote
"Incentives? What are those?"
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
393
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:31:33 -
[127] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon.
Tell us exactly how it's any different now?
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:31:42 -
[128] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:Here's an idea, what if they were battleships only.
It would give battleships a reason to be flown, and not make sov into a giant game of "catch the ceptor"
if he can't warp off he's far more catchable, like with a loki :P |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
7506
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:31:57 -
[129] - Quote
Amazing, simply awesome. I really like the look of all these changes and look forward to them immensely.
I will say this, I really want to see some manner of descriptive Sov come to wormhole space. I'm not saying we should be able to build stations or supercapitals, or other balance breaking things which would make us completely impossible to remove from a system. But at the same time, the occupants of the average wormhole system put way more time and effort into their specific system then the owners of most sov null systems. The new sov system is descriptive, it goes off of a 'you get out of a system what you put into it' perspective, which I like a lot. But I definitely think we wormholers have put enough into our systems that we deserve to be able to put up flags saying the system is ours.
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Cheyennes
Evil Doers
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:32:26 -
[130] - Quote
MiliasColds wrote:a note for out of timezone players (from declared prime time)
you still raise indices which makes things easier to defend. you can still help with capture events that are ongoing past prime time. you can be useful attacking other alliances whose prime time aligns with your TZ you can assist allies you can contribute to general logistics you can attrack and reinforces POS and stations services
doesn't seem like nothing to me
In other words, you are relegated to all the crap work, while the rest of eve enjoys PvP..... No thanks
|
|
Ix Method
META Directorate Talos Coalition
421
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:32:36 -
[131] - Quote
I yield to null types in their opinions of this as a sov system but as concepts that could be extended/expanded to suit other parts of space some of this is really pretty awesome.
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
930
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:33:09 -
[132] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon. Tell us exactly how it's any different now?
Provibloc still exists now. |
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:33:46 -
[133] - Quote
Cheyennes wrote:MiliasColds wrote:a note for out of timezone players (from declared prime time)
you still raise indices which makes things easier to defend. you can still help with capture events that are ongoing past prime time. you can be useful attacking other alliances whose prime time aligns with your TZ you can assist allies you can contribute to general logistics you can attrack and reinforces POS and stations services
doesn't seem like nothing to me In other words, you are relegated to all the crap work, while the rest of eve enjoys PvP..... No thanks
none of those things are PVP immune...... |
Proton Stars
OREfull
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:34:19 -
[134] - Quote
well i've no reason to have my 0.0 characters anymore. I can sell my isk making toons and be a super rich frigate pilot and save -ú70 a month on accounts, so good on that respect.
Bad because there will be no narrative to the combat in 0.0, its become world of tanks in space with lots of not really connected instance fights that will be between frigates and ships not really worth hunting. Im glad that CCp kept with its tradition of not actually thinking about the value of gameplay and instead decided that a t1 frigate must be able to do everything
|
Bonzair
Estamos Solos Corporation Estamos Solos Alliance.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:34:19 -
[135] - Quote
you will loose a lot of people. again. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
437
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:34:31 -
[136] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon. Tell us exactly how it's any different now?
i have to commit to grinding about a billion EHP if i want to steamroll providence for funsies today
with i can do it in a few days with subcap fleets
it's not MUCH worse since it's already quite bad but when you're trying to fix a problem and actually make it worse, you sure didn't think things through |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1687
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:35:23 -
[137] - Quote
take the moons
**** the sov
let it burn
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
560
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:36:50 -
[138] - Quote
Summer of Rage 2.0 ?
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2042
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:37:22 -
[139] - Quote
ok before anyone else freekin says it, point me to the damn ceptor that can target out to 250km. |
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:37:44 -
[140] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:well i've no reason to have my 0.0 characters anymore. I can sell my isk making toons and be a super rich frigate pilot and save -ú70 a month on accounts, so good on that respect.
Bad because there will be no narrative to the combat in 0.0, its become world of tanks in space with lots of not really connected instance fights that will be between frigates and ships not really worth hunting. Im glad that CCp kept with its tradition of not actually thinking about the value of gameplay and instead decided that a t1 frigate must be able to do everything
And frigate pilots will fly to Elite Dangerous and Scam Citizen, and when they want to attract people back to the game with capital ships, what bringed most of the player base to EVE, it'd be too late. |
|
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:37:58 -
[141] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:iP0D wrote:Also, it's absolutely ironic to see what spills over now and from where. Advocate stakeholders hurray.
At this point I feel like I should just tag every CSM and ex-CSM member with "shill".
You wouldn't be wrong :P Regardless of whether willing or just too deep in this or that trench.
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1138
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:38:11 -
[142] - Quote
MiliasColds wrote:a note for out of timezone players (from declared prime time)
you still raise indices which makes things easier to defend. you can still help with capture events that are ongoing past prime time. you can be useful attacking other alliances whose prime time aligns with your TZ you can assist allies you can contribute to general logistics you can attrack and reinforces POS and stations services
doesn't seem like nothing to me
So I can PvE farm which might add a few seconds to a capture timer (oh joy)
In the event that my EU alliance is so bad that things are still going on 6 hours later when I get home in US time, I can join in (heh)
I can go help other people that... oh wait the subject was participating with the defense for MY alliance, not the sprawling blue blob which this does nowhere near enough to discourage.
I can contribute to general logistics... OH joy! Instead of being a PvP'r, I'm now relegated to space truck.
POS warfare is cancer. And attacking enemy station services is A: only irritating, B: extremely temporary, C: doesn't actually help my side in a defensive war. |
Coelomate
Gilliomate Corp
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:38:21 -
[143] - Quote
Looks like an amazing start, although waiting for June killed a little bit of my joy.
My first major concern: The measurement of occupancy looks like it just takes the current system, which as far as I know means no credit for PVP or market activity - two things that actually happen in heavily occupied nullsec.
Love,
~Coelomate
|
W Sherman Elric
Blackstone Holdings Sev3rance
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:38:27 -
[144] - Quote
So lets say cfc owns the ihub BL owns the TCU and CVA owns the station who gets the defensive bonus? Next is the ship multiplier just going to be applied to caps and larger? If I read that right a cap could take up to 160 min to create a timer. |
Brain Gehirn
Reikoku Pandemic Legion
66
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:38:38 -
[145] - Quote
"Hey guys, see that shinny ship blinking? alpha it." - System is good. Everyone dock.
Harassment is getting a new level.
What is a signature?
|
Masao Kurata
Z List
189
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:38:45 -
[146] - Quote
Sooooooo the only reason not to use the vastly superior T2 entosis link is price. I think you need to make it more expensive than 80M, that's still cheap for what it does, especially considering the benefits of the range. |
Barbaydos
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:39:23 -
[147] - Quote
MiliasColds wrote:Cheyennes wrote:MiliasColds wrote:a note for out of timezone players (from declared prime time)
you still raise indices which makes things easier to defend. you can still help with capture events that are ongoing past prime time. you can be useful attacking other alliances whose prime time aligns with your TZ you can assist allies you can contribute to general logistics you can attrack and reinforces POS and stations services
doesn't seem like nothing to me In other words, you are relegated to all the crap work, while the rest of eve enjoys PvP..... No thanks none of those things are PVP immune......
true but has hardly any impact upon the actual sov warfare mechanic itself, i.e. ustz attacks sov au tz attacks pos and pocos and makes timers for the defender to chose wether to defend or not (again depends on the stront timer, which any decent allaince/corp will be able to change on the fly during an attack) which leads back to the main tz usually
|
W Sherman Elric
Blackstone Holdings Sev3rance
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:39:28 -
[148] - Quote
Coelomate wrote:Looks like an amazing start, although waiting for June killed a little bit of my joy.
My first major concern: The measurement of occupancy looks like it just takes the current system, which as far as I know means no credit for PVP or market activity - two things that actually happen in heavily occupied nullsec.
There are systems where tons of non ratting and non mining happen but are the most "occupied" systems (staging systems and the like). |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
913
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:40:01 -
[149] - Quote
Baneken wrote:That flashing crap under the first paragraph was so incredibly annoying that I had kill it with ad-block; since human eye is hard-wired to attract on flashy moving things do you have any idea how incredibly annoying it was to even attempt to read that text with that thing constantly whirling and flashing on screen ?
You clearly haven't logged into the client ina while; every single window changes colour when you activate or deactivate them. |
Dirk Morbho
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:40:05 -
[150] - Quote
The PrimeTime(tm) seems very artificial.
The 'lore' of the enosis link being tied to the drifters is WEAK.
What I see is a bunch of micromanagement and babysitting of sov structures. Sounds like an annoying load of crap where griefers get the upperhand.
Where are the benefits to owning sov? Also, since CCP is trying to push alliances into smaller footprints, when will high player densities be supported? I see no changes to support this. There is still a max # of players making isk that a system will support. And you have not addressed this issue at all.
tl;dr: WTF? Try again. Do you even understand nullsec?
ps. The temporary freeport is the only thing interesting about this system. :content: and :tears:
|
|
Steijn
Quay Industries
642
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:40:36 -
[151] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:Proton Stars wrote:well i've no reason to have my 0.0 characters anymore. I can sell my isk making toons and be a super rich frigate pilot and save -ú70 a month on accounts, so good on that respect.
Bad because there will be no narrative to the combat in 0.0, its become world of tanks in space with lots of not really connected instance fights that will be between frigates and ships not really worth hunting. Im glad that CCp kept with its tradition of not actually thinking about the value of gameplay and instead decided that a t1 frigate must be able to do everything
And frigate pilots will fly to Elite Dangerous and Scam Citizen, and when they want to attract people back to the game with capital ships, what bringed most of the player base to EVE, it'd be too late.
ED needs to get rid of the hackers first as open play is dying a bit atm. |
Cheyennes
Evil Doers
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:41:37 -
[152] - Quote
The big blocks will be richer.
Fewer sov bills. Strategic systems within a jump of an R-64. Pos's at every isk moon that will only get you blobbed..... awesome concept... please let the minnions come to null..... the tears in a year that they can't afford to live there will be epic! |
2Sonas1Cup
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:42:21 -
[153] - Quote
I trully love this change, I can tell how much dynamic and activity it ill bring to eve.
Obviously not everyone can understand it, especially old vets that are accostumed to an easier way of eve. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
438
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:43:09 -
[154] - Quote
2Sonas1Cup wrote:I trully love this change, I can tell how much dynamic and activity it ill bring to eve.
Obviously not everyone can understand it, especially old vets that are accostumed to an easier way of eve. see, only npc characters like this |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:43:21 -
[155] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:"Incentives? What are those?"
Incentives are something different from rewards and payments. It's a behavioural thing related to something known as emergent gameplay, you know - that stuff from the first decade when it was deemed more interesting to tailor the product towards a less costly model of venture development :-)
|
Saidin Thor
The Odin Conspiracy
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:43:28 -
[156] - Quote
I'm not sure CCP has ever had to deal with IHhub logistics first-hand. Being easy to destroy may or may not be a good thing, but IHubs are a HUGE pain to place and upgrade right now. Bigger upgrades AND the IHubs themselves can only be transported in a freighter right now. There's no way a little alliance has the logistics capacity to regularly replace IHubs that roaming gangs will be destroying just for the lulz unless that changes.
If you want to stick with the "but sov logistics should be hard" mantra, then at least resizing them for jump freighters would be better than nothing. Ideally, making IHubs and their upgrades Blockade Runner size would open up a lot of options for the little guy.
Also the premise that defenders will regularly use jump bridges during capture events has to be a joke, right? Have the CCP employees that live in null sec ever tried chaining jump bridges since the fatigue changes went through? Let us know how that worked out for them for the subsequent two weeks. |
Cheyennes
Evil Doers
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:43:29 -
[157] - Quote
2Sonas1Cup wrote:I trully love this change, I can tell how much dynamic and activity it ill bring to eve.
Obviously not everyone can understand it, especially old vets that are accostumed to an easier way of eve.
almost snorted coffee out of my nose..... last time I checked, the gates to 0.0 didn't require a key.
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate
374
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:44:13 -
[158] - Quote
I'm currently a FW pilot and haven't been in null since 2008, so take this comment with that in mind. What I currently love about FW sov is the ability to make progress towards the goal across all time zones. The 4 hour "primetime" goes against this concept (ie farms and fields), as if you are not in that prime time you are not capable of attacking your enemy in any way or defending your own assets in any way. I would highly suggest that you change the prime time window in some way.
For example, instead of pricing a single 4 hour block, each alliance is required to pick three 2-hour blocks that cannot be adjacent (ie 15:00-17:00, 18:00-20:00, and 21:00-23:00). This will force the fights to be spread across more time zones with a minimum of a 8 hour span.
Another example would be to keep the 4 hour "primetime", but force setting a different value for each of the IHUB, TCU, and station such that there can never be a one hour period of time where all three overlap. This would result in a minimum of a 9 hour window where SOMETHING was vulnerable.
Another example would be to introduce a "random" hour to each structure individually. In this example, each structure would have a random 1 hour window (calculated at downtime) each day where it was vulnerable. When a structure becomes vulnerable, it picks a random time somewhere within the the 4 hour window plus that days random hour (not the random hour when it was reinforced as that would benefit the attacker too greatly). As an optional enhancement, let the structure owner specify 8 unique 1-hour blocks (disjoint from the prime time) which restricts the times where the "random" hour can be.
I think the current system will drive alliance to form around dense 4-hour timezones. If that happens, those alliances will only be effectively fighting other alliances in the same blocks while just staring at alliances outside their 4-hour primetime with zero ability to impact them in any meaningful way.
QCATS is recruiting:-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3896299
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:44:38 -
[159] - Quote
What about the following scenario:
Person A from one corp starts hacking (time 0:00). At 2:30 an enemy gang appears and starts shooting him. Person B (from the same corp as Person A) arrives and starts hacking right before Person A dies (time 3:00). At time 5:00, a full 5 minutes have hacking has been done, but person B has 3:00 left on their cycle (let's assume he tanks them long enough to live till time 5:00). Will that count as hacking the structure or does it need to be 5 minutes completed by a single entosis link. I feel like letting people chain hacks together could be abused so i hope it ends up requiring a single ship to live for the entire 5 minutes. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
4863
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:44:46 -
[160] - Quote
Suggestions for addressing the timezone issues:
1) Expand the window to 8 hours 2) If you pick a 4 hour window, you also get a 2 hour window 10 hours from the end of your chosen window. This would mean that a US TZ window would have an opposite time that would be RUS friendly and an EU window would have AUS friendly times.
CSM 7 Secretary
CSM 6 Alternate Delegate
@two_step_eve on Twitter
My Blog
|
|
the sargent
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:45:25 -
[161] - Quote
It's funny, everyone tells CCP they want a occupancy based SOV system. When CCP comes up with a system that takes the basic concept of "occupancy" and uses it as a mechanic everyone start whining about how it will ruin everything. Seriously guys calm down if it doesn't work out guess what? it will be fixed in a couple of months because of the shorter release schedule. Give the system a chance first before going "IT'S THE END!"
I mean seriously every time CCP changes something to do will null sec its "the end of null sec as we know it," and yes that is true but just because it's the end of one system doesn't mean the new system is going to be complete trash.
Damn, sorry for the minor wall of text. |
Hicksimus
Xion Limited Resonance.
543
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:45:55 -
[162] - Quote
I've been posting about the old CCP coming back...still not convinced? Fail a few more game projects and keep wasting time making half-assed nullsec changes....let me know how that works out for you.
Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you?
Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
|
Master S
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:48:41 -
[163] - Quote
If they proceed this update in the summer the game will die. (good for economy then, people get out more, finally we all see some sun and get some Vitamine D, instead of EvE stars and suns on our screens) Or most people who dont want to be in a big alliance, they go gank Hisec.
CCP proceed this and your core gamers will be gone, congratz! So instead of being different and original then other MMORPG's they will just be the same as WoW or other popular mindnumbing MMORPG's for people who don't want to use their brain and start complaining when the game gets harder.
- NRDS will be killed with this update (bye bye NRDS as we know it) since carebears won't protect their space, they go Hisec - alliances (big or small) will be even more awesome, the hard work, hours and hours of boring grinding in Bashfleets, the billions of isk that goes into infrastructure and what more, can be taken over in 10 mins, WOOT WOOT got to love that
and more stuff that will make it more dumb to get new players in
So next step in August will be pay for your system or your officer modules! Pay to win EVE, is what they are building towards!
Glad that i paid till June, see u guys after June in another game
gg CCP |
Jack Haydn
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:48:47 -
[164] - Quote
So you fortified the need for even bigger coalition building. The one who can field the most players in fast, agile ships is the one who can lock down the most systems (for either attack or defense) and run the most concurrent RFs or Command Node takeovers.
If you're a small timer, you'll get crushed by the coalitions who will always have more people available to chase and cockblock you, all while running their own Entosii in the meantime.
Pretty chastening. |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
514
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:49:05 -
[165] - Quote
So CCP, you've not really addressed the incentives for holding Sov, simply fighting for the sake of it isn't a proper conflict driver: see the rather dull area of EVE call nullsec.
It's a start I guess but:
Prime Time thing is a terrible idea, you'll see alliances start to lose their multinational flavour. If GSF sets prime time to US, what do all the EU guys do right? Must be a better option to scale this or opt out for other benefits, scale it base on alliance size.
This entosis thing, what happens if we get 5000 ceptors all with them on board? Wasn't this question asked at any point?
AFK cloaking - It's going to affect indices, for better or worse. |
Barbaydos
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:49:39 -
[166] - Quote
Two step wrote:Suggestions for addressing the timezone issues:
1) Expand the window to 8 hours 2) If you pick a 4 hour window, you also get a 2 hour window 10 hours from the end of your chosen window. This would mean that a US TZ window would have an opposite time that would be RUS friendly and an EU window would have AUS friendly times.
this would be better than the 4 hour window of DOOM they are proposing. ideally it would be vulnerable 23.5/7 but just take longer to reinforce like the FW system, that way you can promote more fight across a wider timezone and it also encouraged alliances to not become a specific TZ heavy and have little no other timezones playerwise |
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
561
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:49:53 -
[167] - Quote
Why not just make it simple ? Create- I dunno - a huge star-base that you can anchor a the frigging sun or whatever . If it gets destroyed it's no longer your system. Occupancy will get you bonuses towards how hard it is to get destroyed etc. You can defend it with platform/batteries and active fleets patrolling. The End.
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
W Sherman Elric
Blackstone Holdings Sev3rance
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:50:29 -
[168] - Quote
Two step wrote:Suggestions for addressing the timezone issues:
1) Expand the window to 8 hours 2) If you pick a 4 hour window, you also get a 2 hour window 10 hours from the end of your chosen window. This would mean that a US TZ window would have an opposite time that would be RUS friendly and an EU window would have AUS friendly times.
yuk oh boy lets make this eu only alliance alarm clock for an AU TZ, not all alliances have strong presence in all three TZ's |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
254
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:50:59 -
[169] - Quote
Altrue wrote:The bad stuff:[list] Yay! Brave Collective will pick an US timezone and thanks to your new system, ensure that EU and AU get no chances to defend their space EVER. At least, with the current system we had the opportunity to actively prevent the first attack... Now all is left is the defense of station services, very exciting. Or maybe Brave could split into multiple alliances for differing timezones that are loosely affiliated in a coalition but are much more independent and locally operated. And then maybe once in awhile those alliances might get bored and actually fight each other instead of blue-ing up half the map, or draw conflict from smaller groups that want to take on, say, only AU Brave but not the entirety of US/EU/AU Brave.
Which, I think, was kind of the point. It's supposed to encourage these massive blocs to break up into smaller, localized units with people that actually PLAY TOGETHER in similar timezones, in space, with each other. Not just in name only.
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
913
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:52:28 -
[170] - Quote
the sargent wrote:It's funny, everyone tells CCP they want a occupancy based SOV system. When CCP comes up with a system that takes the basic concept of "occupancy" and uses it as a mechanic everyone start whining about how it will ruin everything. Seriously guys calm down if it doesn't work out guess what? it will be fixed in a couple of months because of the shorter release schedule. Give the system a chance first before going "IT'S THE END!"
I mean seriously every time CCP changes something to do will null sec its "the end of null sec as we know it," and yes that is true but just because it's the end of one system doesn't mean the new system is going to be complete trash.
Damn, sorry for the minor wall of text.
Occupancy sov which has been asked for in multiple ways and venues implies that one needs to live in a system to even be able to claim the system. In this proposed one, no one needs to live there, they just need to orbit a few FW buttons to save the sov and keep trucking straight after that.
Blobbing also won't go anywhere, spreading 3000 pilots to 7 systems is still over 400 pilots per button orbiting, no small entity will be able to even try to capture a system in this model. Toss in three dozen supers on that button and unless you're willing to get get all the supers in every system in the constellation to be dropped on you, you might not want to enter the plex.
(Yes, using FW terms because this is exactly how FW works without the need to point a lazor beam at a floating box for 2 minutes prior to orbiting said button.) |
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1155
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:52:29 -
[171] - Quote
Q: Once a capture event is started, are the Command Nodes available outside of the owning alliance's prime-time vulnerability, or are they locked out?
I am officially coining the phrase Thunder-Zone (TZ), because sov warfare will soon be strictly limited to time zones rather than areas of space. The new Thunder-Zone is going to be late EU, early US, (Atlantic) obviously. Russian space will always be Russian. Same for AU.
However, should a large alliance or coalition of alliances decide to alarm clock it, they can spam inties across an entire region to effectively reinforce all the things across an entire region in 10-40 minutes.
The Entosis Link is an active module. I'm pretty sure the blog also stated that the Entosis Link requires a target lock. So having a 240km range means nothing if you can't lock that far.
Or a small super-heavy alliance like PL or NC. can drop supers in a system and reinforce with those without ever firing a shot. As they are immune to EWAR, jamming them to break target locks will be neigh-on impossible. I see nothing stopping them from reinforcing with supers. They will work just as well so long as they stay alive. Not sure if worth the risk though.
So the system, though significantly different on the surface, will not really change much, except for the station Freeporting. I really don't understand the point of that concept.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:52:42 -
[172] - Quote
the sargent wrote:It's funny, everyone tells CCP they want a occupancy based SOV system. When CCP comes up with a system that takes the basic concept of "occupancy" and uses it as a mechanic everyone start whining about how it will ruin everything. Seriously guys calm down if it doesn't work out guess what? it will be fixed in a couple of months because of the shorter release schedule. Give the system a chance first before going "IT'S THE END!"
I mean seriously every time CCP changes something to do will null sec its "the end of null sec as we know it," and yes that is true but just because it's the end of one system doesn't mean the new system is going to be complete trash.
Damn, sorry for the minor wall of text.
That sounds like the typical stuff CCPians tell CSM and lurkers on IRC. Something which hasn't changed in over a decade, always the same story. You know we've had times where we had short release cycles before right? Always the Holy Grail of resource allocation in a company which is set to slowly lower the cost of development and maintenance ...
Sov is one of those things you need to figure out on a behavioural level, and set out for it to last at least half of such a second decade. Why? because of resource allocations required, and because it's tied so innately into what makes EVE commercially feasible that simply taking the mechanical low key routes within a closed system never ends up as anything but a disaster.
It's the end of null-sec as we know it, but the return of what we used to know - once upon a long ago. It's also indicative of a sense of necessity towards dumbing things down in order to make it easier to ... maintain.
Which is another word than "develop".
Don't presume the dev peeps are hearing from has a clue of the constraints set by the folks upstairs. |
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
993
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:53:18 -
[173] - Quote
Rowells wrote:ok before anyone else freekin says it, point me to the damn ceptor that can target out to 250km.
Most I can get on a Crow is 162km, and that Crow would die to a mildly equipped house fly.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
254
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:53:21 -
[174] - 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
Getting people into space doing all variety of activities is the point. So yes, mining ops and industry members not being treated as second class citizens. Imagine that?
That said, yeah nullsec mining itself needs a fix to make that more than just a gimmick. But, I mean... perfect opportunity for the Rorq to be rebalanced into something awesome for just this purpose, right? |
Helios Panala
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:53:44 -
[175] - Quote
Alliances need to be able to set 'prime-time' on a per structure basis so that groups spread across multiple timezones can be given content, at the very least you can have your different TZs defending different borders.
Other than that looks good to me. |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:54:15 -
[176] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Rowells wrote:ok before anyone else freekin says it, point me to the damn ceptor that can target out to 250km. Most I can get on a Crow is 162km, and that Crow would die to a mildly equipped house fly.
[Hyena, Pause Butan] Damage Control II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II
Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Medium Shield Extender II
Entosis Link II [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Small Auxiliary Thrusters II Small Auxiliary Thrusters II
|
Amely Miles
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:54:18 -
[177] - Quote
Jack Haydn wrote:So you fortified the need for even bigger coalition building. The one who can field the most players in fast, agile ships is the one who can lock down the most systems (for either attack or defense) and run the most concurrent RFs or Command Node takeovers.
If you're a small timer, you'll get crushed by the coalitions who will always have more people available to chase and cockblock you, all while running their own Entosii in the meantime.
Pretty chastening.
they say in the blog
"the system considers every member of the owning alliance to be defenders and every other player to be attackers"
This means bigger Alliances not bigger Coalitions as the Coalition that comes to save your Sov will then be considered a "Attacker"
Favorite Quotes:
In Space No one flings Poo!!
Yes that is a Banana in my Pocket
http://spacemp.net
|
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
311
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:54:35 -
[178] - Quote
I can't, and won't, talk about these Sov changes due to my complete lack of experience on the matter.
However, I am very intrigued about that Entosis Link. Does it mean we will finally be able to hack abandoned POS at W-Space? =3 |
ImageQuest
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:54:45 -
[179] - Quote
W Sherman Elric wrote:[quote=Two step]Suggestions for addressing the timezone issues:
yuk oh boy lets make this eu only alliance alarm clock for an AU TZ, not all alliances have strong presence in all three TZ's
I guess thats why it's publicly visible and takes 96hours to be swapped. If you are invading you will invade system that has presets you like. |
HeXxploiT
Little Red X
109
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:54:46 -
[180] - Quote
If I travel half way around the earth to conquer an enemies territory guess what...i'm fighting in their timezone. I'm not going too **** & moan from the trench that it's 3am my time. Remember guys Eve is Real! Looks like a lot of thought went into this new system. This is really going to shake things up. Will be interesting to see how the major power blocks adapt. I love the idea that individual pilots and small gangs are given more opportunity to do big things and make a name for themselves. |
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
254
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:55:27 -
[181] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Is the solution to just "go find another alliance"?
Yes. Go find another alliance that actually plays actively during the same time as you. I'm pretty sure this sort of balkanization/fracturing of massive blocs is ENTIRELY THE POINT.
|
Mo'Chuisle
The Executives Executive Outcomes
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:55:38 -
[182] - Quote
How the ******* **** can anyone think up a new sovereignty concept that relies on a four hour prime time window per day for the only interaction between players and not stop and scrap the whole system at that point?
You have to be functionally ******** to not realize that the moment you introduce that prime time window, even if the rest of your system was the greatest new change to eve in ever (and, oh my, it is not, it is more like the worst concept through up by people who clearly have no idea what benefits large blocks and how make smaller groups more competitive), that you should stop yourself and clearly start over from scratch.
Have fun playing with your own dicks from now on until eternity small aussie groups |
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
561
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:57:39 -
[183] - Quote
Also, Why did you have to go and create a new gimmick when hacking was there already ? (just to tie it to the Drifter lore? ) Why not allow those things to be hacked as we do now in explo ? This way maybe more of us "vagrants" will find a home and reason in a corp.
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
254
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:57:50 -
[184] - Quote
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:Remember that larger alliances have the ability to organize and sustain action better than most smaller ones. One outcome of these changes may very well be large areas of wasteland that is regularly mowed of sov 'just cause'.
What's wrong with that?
If there is no strong entity able to hold sov in these regions, but no powerbloc willing to likewise defend sov in these regions... should the region be owned by anyone? More freeports in more of nullsec is not necessarily a bad thing. The entire nullsec map does not NEED to have established sov. In fact, the current system that enables this seems fundamentally broken and is why people keep arguing that EVE needs more systems/more space!
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:57:51 -
[185] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:why are sov bears not shooting everything in jita yet?
It is outside of the 4 hour vulnerable window? |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:58:33 -
[186] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:So CCP, you've not really addressed the incentives for holding Sov, simply fighting for the sake of it isn't a proper conflict driver: see the rather dull area of EVE call nullsec.
It's a start I guess but:
Prime Time thing is a terrible idea, you'll see alliances start to lose their multinational flavour. If GSF sets prime time to US, what do all the EU guys do right? Must be a better option to scale this or opt out for other benefits, scale it base on alliance size.
This entosis thing, what happens if we get 5000 ceptors all with them on board? Wasn't this question asked at any point?
AFK cloaking - It's going to affect indices, for better or worse.
Look at PL vs HERO ... not everything blue around you more things to shoot. |
W Sherman Elric
Blackstone Holdings Sev3rance
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:58:34 -
[187] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
To recap:
1st phase we made it impossible to project force.
2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.
response to #1 did you miss the BL march across eve? I didn't that was very cool watching BL move system by system to get into the fight 7 hours it took them. Impossible? no hard? yes and it should be.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
630
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:59:00 -
[188] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:why are sov bears not shooting everything in jita yet? We're giving CCP time to repent.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Zara Tosh
Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi
191
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:59:09 -
[189] - Quote
so, to increase interaction between different timezones and to still give alliances incentive to have memebrs over multiple timezones (not just the 4h eve fix nerds), i think it would be useful if, under the assumption that an alliance holds both the ihub and station, both of these timers must be off-set by 12h. You can still decide to defend the station (maybe have the ihub timer be dependent on station timer simply), but byebye all your fancy ratting upgrades - should have gotten some friends to interact with. |
Bailian Moxtain
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:59:43 -
[190] - Quote
Trash our supers and Hey lets go find those 10 command-thingys, hoooow fun. Lets put 5k ppl into a const for defense, wonder who wins |
|
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
561
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:00:20 -
[191] - Quote
There will be blood :D
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
virm pasuul
Viziam Amarr Empire
208
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:00:26 -
[192] - Quote
Lots of tears in this thread. You should consider buying a crying permit before James sets his sights on 0.0.
The insults to the devs are a bit off. Try being more constructive and using more reasoning. |
Dictateur Imperator
Babylon Knights DARKNESS.
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:00:55 -
[193] - Quote
Ok,
You want a feedback ? 4Hour of prime time is to many, maybe 2 hours is enough because it's means pvp EVERY DAY during this time you. Because yes you have forgot a little thing: people who want easy km g to engage everyday all territory just ' for fun'. And it's recommended to make a break every 2 hours of gaming.
If i have read the devblog: The attacker camp can have a lot of link activate , and the capture will be continue unless defense deploy is own link ? So if we make 50 alliance of 2-3 people to run attack we have 50 link on and enjoy to efenser to defend against this ? Maybe make an interdiction to have more of 1 link for each camp.
Capital and super capital be use for what now ?
Some sov become easier to defend as other : you can have Death star pos near TCU not near other sov structure ... give possibilliy to deploy some defence near other structure to avoid stupid strategy like 3 people in each system of your opponent reconnect an activate link same time in each sov building ?
Nerf perma cloacking because it become to powerful with this new system ? |
Speedy Conzollis
Only Fools and Horses
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:01:31 -
[194] - Quote
Left 0.0 Sov due to the mechanics for a WH, peeked outside at the new mechanics, nope not coming back out for that! |
Proton Stars
OREfull
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:02:01 -
[195] - Quote
Why is no one else concerned that GM's are once again playing in and influencing sov warfare with hidden alts.
Cause that went so well before in BoB, didint it!
'Oi Fozzie im poor, spawn me an officer in this belt please'
'Oi Fozziee, Have a look on that ccp graph and tell me the best t3's to build over a 6 month period'
'Oi Fozzie, Develop me a sov system that breaks the current gameplay cause im too lazy to try to take sov and invest me time right now'
|
Elona Solette
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:02:21 -
[196] - Quote
Blatant Australian timezone buff. |
imtokenitnow
Federal Organization for Outerspace Freedom Circle-Of-Two
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:02:34 -
[197] - Quote
About the primetime zone, why don't scale it on member count AND/OR number of TCU, IHUB, stations ? And make the ability to split the timer in two primetime (who can be close together) if > 6h (for exemple) ?
It should not be too hard to find a function doing that.
Like : 3H Small number of alliance & systems : Phoebe Freeport Republic 5H Medium-Large number of alliance & systems : Curatores Veritatis Alliance or Northern Coalition. 2*4H Huge number of alliance & systems : Northern Associate or Goonswarm Federation.
It resolve some of the problems of the unique primetime & also the bigger you are, the harder it is to protect your space.
What do you think about that ? |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:02:34 -
[198] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Proton Stars wrote:why are sov bears not shooting everything in jita yet? We're giving CCP time to repent.
No, people are being considerate, and giving them time. After all, the main selling point of this new proposed system is that it is modular and extendable.
Just like Dominion was.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1354
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:02:47 -
[199] - Quote
Initial thought on this:
* Mining providing defensive bonuses is probably not going to be used in any significant capacity while nullsec mining is in such a hilariously bad place. I mean, check out this mining profitability chart: http://eve-industry.org/mining/ . No one in their right mind is going to call CTA RED PEN MINING OPS to buttress their sov.
Gonna need to let it sink in some more before I think of anything else, I think.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Karbowiak
4M-CORP Black Legion.
196
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:03:09 -
[200] - Quote
Nami Kumamato wrote:Why not just make it simple ? Create- I dunno - a huge star-base that you can anchor a the frigging sun or whatever . If it gets destroyed it's no longer your system. Occupancy will get you bonuses towards how hard it is to get destroyed etc. You can defend it with platform/batteries and active fleets patrolling. The End.
Yes, so much yes.. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2043
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:03:49 -
[201] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Why is no one else concerned that GM's are once again playing in and influencing sov warfare with hidden alts.
Cause that went so well before in BoB, didint it!
'Oi Fozzie im poor, spawn me an officer in this belt please'
'Oi Fozziee, Have a look on that ccp graph and tell me the best t3's to build over a 6 month period'
'Oi Fozzie, Develop me a sov system that breaks the current gameplay cause im too lazy to try to take sov and invest me time right now'
cuz i left my tinfoil hat at home |
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:04:09 -
[202] - Quote
If sov structures are so separated, does this mean that player alliances can anchor an ihub in NPC nullsec? Wormhole space? Same question in regards to a station.
What structure determines sov for the ability to use a SCAA? Ihub or TCU? Seems like the answer is ihub, but want to make sure. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
163
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:04:25 -
[203] - Quote
Capqu wrote:also rip supers LOL
Good, frankly.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
MajorScrewup
Thundercats The Initiative.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:04:36 -
[204] - Quote
I seriously thought there was going to be more after all this time...
Realistically there is now the possibility that I could never be involved in trying to take SOV as every other alliance could set a time when I cannot log into EvE and play. This artificial timer could mean that EvE null-sec only becomes an option to certain timezones.
I also thought that they would start to use degradation of Sovereignty in systems that were never being used for anything by a corporation / alliance (mining / ratting, jumps, etc); but these metrics are only used to make a system stronger or leave them stable, never weaker. I would have preferred them to add some sort of degradation where and inactive system would slowly fall out of captured status and either be easier to capture or gain non captured status. |
Christopher AET
hirr Northern Coalition.
904
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:05:43 -
[205] - Quote
While the idea of a 4 hour primetime for exiting reinforce has merit, it's far too constrictive for roaming gangs to mess with. I think removing the primetime altogether for the initial attack and have it come out in the primetime, then from there it would act as stated. Could be 20 hours, could be 20 minutes. Don't have it signposted outside the alliance so that way gangs have to come and probe the space with entosis links to get a feel for the timers. I would also advocate extending the time to 6 hours, to add a little uncertainty.
The idea of occupancy and use buffing the defendability of a system is a good idea, though it's perhaps a little simplistic in its current form. I am sure that can be iterated on. The command node idea is excellent. Could really add some interesting flavour to fights.
I drain ducks of their moisture for sustenance.
|
Galdur Trudaihnel
13. Enigma Project
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:05:57 -
[206] - Quote
Much Love CCP
You have had me worried at times, and with star citizen and elite dangerous on the radar I was touching cloth and hoping you would pull something out of the bag......
But this is a game changer, a whole new level. YES YES YES YES YES. You have cracked it ! This will mix things up for all players in EVE. Null care bears and big alliances in general will hate it ..... everyone else should love it for the varied content it will bring to small, medium and large scale pvp. A few teaks here and there and bring on June :)
Love it or hate it much content will be had! No more blue balling small roaming gangs though :)
Cheers Will |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
254
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:06:00 -
[207] - Quote
Saidin Thor wrote:I'm not sure CCP has ever had to deal with IHhub logistics first-hand. Being easy to destroy may or may not be a good thing, but IHubs are a HUGE pain to place and upgrade right now. Bigger upgrades AND the IHubs themselves can only be transported in a freighter right now. There's no way a little alliance has the logistics capacity to regularly replace IHubs that roaming gangs will be destroying just for the lulz unless that changes.
So? Why should a smaller alliance be able to drop and maintain an iHub? The point of this system is to make it unnecessary to do so, yet still feel like some small piece of space is "yours". Smaller alliances are being encouraged to drop a TCU and some POS's to own/live in a quiet constellation, not drop station eggs and turn every bit of their space into a major alliance powerbloc.
Not every piece/benefit of the new sov system should be accessible to alliances of every size; that would be dumb. This new setup intentionally decouples this stuff for exactly this reason.
|
Tiberon Darkstar
Dark Praetorian Order
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:06:59 -
[208] - Quote
Personally, I think the system is brilliant. It's an interesting mix of current sov, occupancy sov, and FW mechanics.
I would like to see some combat role for supers so that they make themselves vulnerable, but I think they might just be able to take their originally intended role of squad/fleet support and be highly valued not for their DPS, but for their overall effect on your forces and your ability to facilitate sov combat by bringing reinforcements and supplies to the combat area. Sort of like a mobile mini-station. This also gives an incentive to hunt them down when you find them so that you can route your attackers.
The activity levels and strategic options that I can think of for this system is staggering, maybe too much so for those that are used to the static null we have had for years now.
I can't wait! |
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:07:07 -
[209] - Quote
My God
What a load of cr4p.
What the hell is WRONG with you people ?
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:07:22 -
[210] - Quote
Galdur Trudaihnel wrote:Much Love CCP
You have had me worried at times, and with star citizen and elite dangerous on the radar I was touching cloth and hoping you would pull something out of the bag......
But this is a game changer, a whole new level. YES YES YES YES YES. You have cracked it ! This will mix things up for all players in EVE. Null care bears and big alliances in general will hate it ..... everyone else should love it for the varied content it will bring to small, medium and large scale pvp. A few teaks here and there and bring on June :)
Love it or hate it much content will be had! No more blue balling small roaming gangs though :)
Cheers Will
there is no longer a reason to hold sov if this is implemented.... sov would only be held in strategic locations that cover a whole bunch of r-64's and 32's. The little guy wont be able to afford his sov bill, he will run out of money because he cant control the moon income..... then he leaves 0.0.... we have come full circle |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3938
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:07:29 -
[211] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
993
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:08:32 -
[212] - Quote
Nami Kumamato wrote:Also, Why did you have to go and create a new gimmick when hacking was there already ? (just to tie it to the Drifter lore? ) Why not allow those things to be hacked as we do now in explo ? This way maybe more of us "vagrants" will find a home and reason in a corp.
+1 for hackable structures
Also, check the first link in my sig.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1419
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:09:11 -
[213] - Quote
4 hour timer is a bad idea making virtual Berlin Walls between players. I'd go so far as to say it was encouraging nationalism and is borderline-racist. |
Tia Aves
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:09:39 -
[214] - Quote
Master S wrote:If they proceed this update in the summer the game will die.
This thread is absolutely rammed full of golden comments like this already. If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit.
But seriously absolutely excellent work CCP. It is really going to make things much more fluid and give a chance to the little guy. Now the amount of systems that an alliance will own will be directly tied to how much they WANT their space and how much they are willing to defend it. Only thing i'm not sure on is the 4 hour window, but I have no suggestions on how I would change it at this moment in time. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1737
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:10:05 -
[215] - Quote
Querns wrote:Initial thought on this: * Mining providing defensive bonuses is probably not going to be used in any significant capacity while nullsec mining is in such a hilariously bad place. I mean, check out this mining profitability chart: http://eve-industry.org/mining/ . No one in their right mind is going to call CTA RED PEN MINING OPS to buttress their sov. Gonna need to let it sink in some more before I think of anything else, I think. Blame the market
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:10:11 -
[216] - Quote
MajorScrewup wrote:I seriously thought there was going to be more after all this time...
What did you expect. It shows the priorities in resource allocation thusfar, and resource allocation for iteration. Very very low.
|
the sargent
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:10:18 -
[217] - Quote
Cheyennes wrote:the sargent wrote:It's funny, everyone tells CCP they want a occupancy based SOV system. When CCP comes up with a system that takes the basic concept of "occupancy" and uses it as a mechanic everyone start whining about how it will ruin everything. Seriously guys calm down if it doesn't work out guess what? it will be fixed in a couple of months because of the shorter release schedule. Give the system a chance first before going "IT'S THE END!"
I mean seriously every time CCP changes something to do will null sec its "the end of null sec as we know it," and yes that is true but just because it's the end of one system doesn't mean the new system is going to be complete trash.
Damn, sorry for the minor wall of text. Says the guy with no 0.0 history in his employment history.
You're right I don't have any 0.0 employment history. Didn't feel like joining one of the big power blocs and small independent corps can't exist in 0.0 space. With some adjusting this system could actually allow smaller groups to effectively claim SOV somewhere and keep it. Is what CCP proposing perfect probably not.
However, for the first time I'm actually considering 0.0 space as a viable place i would want to go to and live in for an extended period of time, and isn't that the point of all this. To get more people to want to fly out to 0.0 space? |
ORJI
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:10:49 -
[218] - Quote
TL'DR
EVE=Capture The Flag |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2043
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:10:50 -
[219] - Quote
ok this is really important, Dreads just lost half of their purpose and im willing to geuss more than half of their usage. Please tell me there are plans to change that.
E: the same might be said for supercarriers |
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
347
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:11:40 -
[220] - Quote
Rowells wrote:ok this is really important, Dreads just lost half of their purpose and im willing to geuss more than half of their usage. Please tell me there are plans to change that.
E: the same might be said for supercarriers I am in the market for some cheap Naglfars.
Sell yours now! |
|
Saidin Thor
The Odin Conspiracy
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:11:55 -
[221] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Saidin Thor wrote:I'm not sure CCP has ever had to deal with IHhub logistics first-hand. Being easy to destroy may or may not be a good thing, but IHubs are a HUGE pain to place and upgrade right now. Bigger upgrades AND the IHubs themselves can only be transported in a freighter right now. There's no way a little alliance has the logistics capacity to regularly replace IHubs that roaming gangs will be destroying just for the lulz unless that changes. So? Why should a smaller alliance be able to drop and maintain an iHub? The point of this system is to make it unnecessary to do so, yet still feel like some small piece of space is "yours". Smaller alliances are being encouraged to drop a TCU and some POS's to own/live in a quiet constellation, not drop station eggs and turn every bit of their space into a major alliance powerbloc. Not every piece/benefit of the new sov system should be accessible to alliances of every size; that would be dumb. This new setup intentionally decouples this stuff for exactly this reason.
Sov is, in the most literal sense of the word, worthless without any IHub upgrades. No static anomalies (for ratting or pirating), no strategic upgrades (SCSAAs, jump bridges, cyno jammers). There's no difference between a null sec system without any IHub upgrades and NPC null--except at least in NPC null you can have NPC stations that you can always dock in. |
Steijn
Quay Industries
645
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:12:22 -
[222] - Quote
Rowells wrote:ok this is really important, Dreads just lost half of their purpose and im willing to geuss more than half of their usage. Please tell me there are plans to change that.
E: the same might be said for supercarriers
just allow them to fit strip miners, job done. |
YanniMorePlz
Debitum Naturae
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:12:32 -
[223] - Quote
Just a slight 'concern' that I felt might be worth pointing out. I will quote from the blog:
Quote:The occupancy defense bonuses for all of these structures lock while they are reinforced and will not be affected by changes in indices over the two days of reinforcement.
Much like defensive SBUing, I feel there is potential for a defender to use an alt/spy to intentionally reinforce in order to freeze the index of a system in order to retain it's defensive bonuses. One might do this if let's say, renters have recently fled the area, and the defender does not want to lose their bonuses while being unable or unwilling to invest time to grind them back up.
A easy solution would be to have the index drop after the "lock" period from any inactivity that occurred during the lock.
Just something worth bringing up, it's small and I don't think it impacts anything in a major way. Overall great blog! |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
586
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:12:48 -
[224] - Quote
when I suggested to make sov-warfare more faction warfare-like, I was shut down..
Turns out it wasn't such a bad idea after all.
signature
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:13:02 -
[225] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote: there is no longer a reason to hold sov if this is implemented.... sov would only be held in strategic locations that cover a whole bunch of r-64's and 32's. The little guy wont be able to afford his sov bill, he will run out of money because he cant control the moon income..... then he leaves 0.0.... we have come full circle
If he can't pay his sov bill then he doesn't deserve the sov end of story.
Now if you think the only way to make money to pay sov bills is by using R32 and R64's, let me introduce you to this thing called ratting. You get in a ship and warp to an anom or belt and shoot all the pirates there, and then concord gives you money, it's a pretty sweet deal.
If you don't see the point in owning sov that you actually have to use to own, then you are part of the problem with nullsec these days. |
Allant Doran
Patriot Security Services New Signature
75
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:13:18 -
[226] - Quote
Just to add another player's point of view;
I'm not a huge fan of the prime time idea, as it means tiny, newbie corps and alliances will only have a shot at taking space when the big boys are already online. It also means the more drastic time-zone differences will MUCH more rarely see War.
HOWEVER, if some newbies still have the gall to attempt a system takeover, the larger blocs have to send SOME kind of response. In doing so, they spread themselves, leaving a system several constellations over, more vulnerable than it would have been if nobody had bothered. In theory, anyway, I don't know if this will work in practice. It does mean Supers and other Caps can't be everywhere at one at the drop of a hat though. Defend one attack, then realise another attack is two hours of cyno-jumping Supers away.
I also like the idea that owner Alliances have to be there. Your friends can help you in the battle but they cannot help you protect the Sov of the space itself. I think that has the potential to be a very exciting mechanic.
Sadly, none of this means anything if the Space is not worth fighting over, and it is my understanding that that is still one of the overarching issues people have with 0.0 Warfare. Why bother?
|
Callic Veratar
660
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:13:56 -
[227] - Quote
There should be one more defense bonus based on the size of the window:
`n * ([4 hour windows] - 1) * 0.2` where n = 1-6
If you have 1 window, you get the basic 1x bonus. If you are vulnerable 24 hours a day, you automatically get a 2x defensive bonus. |
Xenuria
Marcabian 5th Invasion Fleet
991
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:14:01 -
[228] - Quote
I support this.
CSM 10 Candidate
|
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:14:02 -
[229] - Quote
the sargent wrote:Cheyennes wrote:the sargent wrote:It's funny, everyone tells CCP they want a occupancy based SOV system. When CCP comes up with a system that takes the basic concept of "occupancy" and uses it as a mechanic everyone start whining about how it will ruin everything. Seriously guys calm down if it doesn't work out guess what? it will be fixed in a couple of months because of the shorter release schedule. Give the system a chance first before going "IT'S THE END!"
I mean seriously every time CCP changes something to do will null sec its "the end of null sec as we know it," and yes that is true but just because it's the end of one system doesn't mean the new system is going to be complete trash.
Damn, sorry for the minor wall of text. Says the guy with no 0.0 history in his employment history. You're right I don't have any 0.0 employment history. Didn't feel like joining one of the big power blocs and small independent corps can't exist in 0.0 space. With some adjusting this system could actually allow smaller groups to effectively claim SOV somewhere and keep it. Is what CCP proposing perfect probably not. However, for the first time I'm actually considering 0.0 space as a viable place i would want to go to and live in for an extended period of time, and isn't that the point of all this. To get more people to want to fly out to 0.0 space?
How can you comment about it if you haven't experienced it? If you do not understand it in its current form, then quite frankly you have no clue about the ramifications that will even more, negatively affect the little guy
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:14:21 -
[230] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:Will notifications go out like they do now? Will the entire alliance get a mail that something of theirs is under attack so they can dispatch a fleet to go defend it? Or will it get RF'd and then we get notifications about RF status and the like? This is a good question. If notifications continue to go out the moment someone invades/attacks another groups sov it will undermine this new system. |
|
LT Alter
Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies.
138
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:14:49 -
[231] - Quote
With the nerf to capital ship usage cycle time, would I be able to enter triage in my carrier while I used the entosis link? |
Mirrell Tapaa
Mystery Incorporated
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:15:01 -
[232] - Quote
Timers like this in DUST failed, what makes you think they will work in eve...
Also came expecting to find out how planet sov will play a part and left disappointed. |
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
347
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:15:06 -
[233] - Quote
Tia Aves wrote:Only thing i'm not sure on is the 4 hour window, but I have no suggestions on how I would change it at this moment in time. Agreed. It sounds fair, since timezones are an ever-present complicating factor in international multiplayer games, but on the other hand... Not being allowed to interact with the structures of other players for 20 hours any given day is more than a little awkward.
As an upside, you can check the map for areas where the locals are likely to be ready to defend their territory at your scheduled roaming hour. |
Gorski Car
499
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:15:39 -
[234] - Quote
Xenuria wrote:I support this.
I agree...
Collect this post
|
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:15:40 -
[235] - Quote
YanniMorePlz wrote:Just a slight 'concern' that I felt might be worth pointing out. I will quote from the blog: Quote:The occupancy defense bonuses for all of these structures lock while they are reinforced and will not be affected by changes in indices over the two days of reinforcement. Much like defensive SBUing, I feel there is potential for a defender to use an alt/spy to intentionally reinforce in order to freeze the index of a system in order to retain it's defensive bonuses. One might do this if let's say, renters have recently fled the area, and the defender does not want to lose their bonuses while being unable or unwilling to invest time to grind them back up. A easy solution would be to have the index drop after the "lock" period from any inactivity that occurred during the lock. Just something worth bringing up, it's small and I don't think it impacts anything in a major way. Overall great blog!
my interpretation would be it would lock for the cature event, but the indices still degrade (the bonus doesn't) however if the defender wins that capture event then the next time it is reinforced it would take into account the degraded indices |
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:15:46 -
[236] - Quote
LOL @ groups who just spent years and trillions of isk to build a supercap fleet, that job will be done by interceptors now |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2805
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:16:22 -
[237] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:GOB the Magician wrote:Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this. I can think of several: You enjoy living there You enjoy living with the people there you live with You enjoy fighting your neighbors nearby . And the most important one of all - epeen.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:17:14 -
[238] - Quote
Princess Cherista wrote:LOL @ groups who just spent years and trillions of isk to build a supercap fleet, that job will be done by interceptors now
You'll have to lol a bit louder as im sure many of them willl leave the game and cant hear you from whichever game they are now playing. |
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:17:36 -
[239] - Quote
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:Tia Aves wrote:Only thing i'm not sure on is the 4 hour window, but I have no suggestions on how I would change it at this moment in time. Agreed. It sounds fair, since timezones are an ever-present complicating factor in international multiplayer games, but on the other hand... Not being allowed to interact with the structures of other players for 20 hours any given day is more than a little awkward. As an upside, you can check the map for areas where the locals are likely to be ready to defend their territory at your scheduled roaming hour.
i would suppose that the intent is that off time zone you attack other things to make the indices go down, and things, to make the system easier to cap in the 4 hour window (which is infinite if the defender is stalemated)
|
Alexei Stryker
Steiners Erben
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:18:12 -
[240] - Quote
I think ... Its a bit too complicated... I have to read it 2 times to understand the rules
Walking in station
|
|
W Sherman Elric
Blackstone Holdings Sev3rance
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:18:26 -
[241] - Quote
interesting the more I think on it the more curious I am, how is this going to mess with the rental empires? should break them up nicely. But that just leaves empty space need more low sec connections to null regions. Such as branch and period basis for example. |
Xenuria
Marcabian 5th Invasion Fleet
991
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:18:33 -
[242] - Quote
Literally Space Moses wrote:You made sov harder to hold (good) but didn't give any additional incentive to actually hold it (very bad),
Seriously, you keep giving nullsec the stick, when is the carrot going to come? Let me break this down for you.
The Stick is the fee you paid the CFC recruitment officer.
The Carrot is....
There never was a carrot.
CSM 10 Candidate
|
Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers Test Alliance Please Ignore
639
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:19:21 -
[243] - Quote
Are the benefits of CSAA's as well as JB and Cyno upgrades going to be restricted to the owner of the ihub? Will there still be a restriction of a single ihub per system?
|
the sargent
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:19:34 -
[244] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:the sargent wrote:Cheyennes wrote:the sargent wrote:It's funny, everyone tells CCP they want a occupancy based SOV system. When CCP comes up with a system that takes the basic concept of "occupancy" and uses it as a mechanic everyone start whining about how it will ruin everything. Seriously guys calm down if it doesn't work out guess what? it will be fixed in a couple of months because of the shorter release schedule. Give the system a chance first before going "IT'S THE END!"
I mean seriously every time CCP changes something to do will null sec its "the end of null sec as we know it," and yes that is true but just because it's the end of one system doesn't mean the new system is going to be complete trash.
Damn, sorry for the minor wall of text. Says the guy with no 0.0 history in his employment history. You're right I don't have any 0.0 employment history. Didn't feel like joining one of the big power blocs and small independent corps can't exist in 0.0 space. With some adjusting this system could actually allow smaller groups to effectively claim SOV somewhere and keep it. Is what CCP proposing perfect probably not. However, for the first time I'm actually considering 0.0 space as a viable place i would want to go to and live in for an extended period of time, and isn't that the point of all this. To get more people to want to fly out to 0.0 space? How can you comment about it if you haven't experienced it? If you do not understand it in its current form, then quite frankly you have no clue about the ramifications that will even more, negatively affect the little guy
Please explain how it will negatively affect the little guy. I'm being genuinely curious here not a smart a$$. like I said it could use some adjusting but as a basis to start from it seems easier for new people to get into the game of SOV since it doesn't require several capital ships plus full support fleet to take down one system. Again i don't think its perfect but from the outside looking in it looks like it actually has some potential after some tweaking. |
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
149
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:20:15 -
[245] - Quote
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~
Not emptying quoting.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
Trii Seo
712
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:20:25 -
[246] - Quote
I would like to correct the statement that it's a CTF. It is, in fact, a totally different gamemode - Domination.
Sooo uh, to provide some actual criticism instead of just saying how bad Domination was, I'll ask a few questions:
- How does the following system create an incentive to go and take sov? - How does the following system in any way benefit "the small guy" who is "trying to carve out his own system?"
The effort to distribute one system being captured over a constellation to take advantage of its layout is a good idea, in fact - it might be the only good idea out of it. As it stands, unless I'm misinterpreting it, the entire system would reward evading a fight rather than encouraging it.
Viva la revolution!
|
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:20:26 -
[247] - Quote
W Sherman Elric wrote:interesting the more I think on it the more curious I am, how is this going to mess with the rental empires? should break them up nicely. But that just leaves empty space need more low sec connections to null regions. Such as branch and period basis for example.
it's continuing the slow push towards the "don't ship everything to high, and don't import everything from high" mantra, which primarily is only lacking because of t2 materials (which may yet be solved) |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:20:36 -
[248] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:Will notifications go out like they do now? Will the entire alliance get a mail that something of theirs is under attack so they can dispatch a fleet to go defend it? Or will it get RF'd and then we get notifications about RF status and the like? This is a good question. If notifications continue to go out the moment someone invades/attacks another groups sov it will undermine this new system.
I don't think so necessarily. Depending on how far away it is from a staging system, formup and travel times may be just long enough that you could sneak off a hac before enough DPS arrived to kill you. And if not, there's conflict, which is good! woo!
Gorski Car wrote:Xenuria wrote:I support this.
I agree...
Automatically off my ballot for agreeing with Xenuria. XD |
Slaver73
Hedion University Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:21:23 -
[249] - Quote
so, this is a nice highsec sov system
but where is the nullsec system? |
Anslo
Scope Works Overload Everything
31214
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:21:48 -
[250] - Quote
o7 2 ur sov m8r
[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
|
|
Maya Cinderfort
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:22:07 -
[251] - Quote
CCP pls pls don't make me cry.
ok enough QQ
i think the idea of having an event to capture something is good in it self, but BUT the mindnuming bordom we had while we grided down our first few systems was & still is needed. you allways knew when someone attacked your TCU for lols he couldn'T do that much alone. or any structure for that matter, now a single person can come in and troll the living **** out of you.
we have some ppl roaming our systems who would fit into that role quite well. but i don't want to check on **** every 10 minutes just to avoid a stupid dragged out node capturing event.
can't we just all agree that null is together with incursions w-space one of the most profitable areas to be around. now getting new players there without much effort isn't gonna help anyone except those looking for easy kills. maybe make lowsec more entertaining for pve purposes, flood some ppl out & leave null for those who want to play longer than 4 hours a day.
if you go through with this then i hope it brings the goldenfleet times back, but probably unlikely since powerplayers can still drop a few caps on each node there is to capture.
Here's my Idea: Use those capture events for something more fun, more engaging, not life threatening, maybe make it somekind of pvp anomaly spawning in a constellation similar to incrusions giving defenders a bonus (small one). when someone wins the event:
Defender wins = no upkeep until next event spawns Attacker wins = upkeep is doubled & the doubled part payed to the Winner
when no one engages in this at all (talking far out systems) upkeep stays normal. (by not at all i mean no hostile actions taken after reinforcement ends)
BUT (again i know):
if you want to use the node event for sov:
make lets say 1 cap & below node 2 BS and below node 1 BC or cruiser and below (no T3) & 1 destroyer frigat only node. that way alot more ships get used & even expierenced frigat FWers can find a place in an alliance, that is not tackle.
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:22:38 -
[252] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:GOB the Magician wrote:Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this. I can think of several: You enjoy living there You enjoy living with the people there you live with You enjoy fighting your neighbors nearby . And the most important one of all - epeen.
We meet again, my doppelganging friend... |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
255
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:23:52 -
[253] - Quote
Mo'Chuisle wrote:How the ******* **** can anyone think up a new sovereignty concept that relies on a four hour prime time window per day for the only interaction between players and not stop and scrap the whole system at that point?
It's a game. Artificial mechanics are a necessity.
I'm actually happy to see CCP finally taking a more pragmatic approach to this and loosening their historically obsessive ties to lore and realism. We don't actually live in space, we aren't in the military, and defending small pieces of EVE should not require players to maintain 24/7 vigilance or 12 hours of AFK structure grinding. Some form of artificial/gimmicky mechanic is a simple reality in the face of this fact.
And this doesn't really do anything to negate the advantages large blocs gain from being able to behave like no-lifers in aggregate, it just allows some smaller niche stuff.
That said, I agree with other comments made so far... the real key will still hinges on providing benefits to occupancy that allow higher-density life in nullsec. Larger blocs must be able to maintain their member base in smaller/denser regions of space, and in theory reward occupancy/defense/large bloc behavior with the ability to concentrate more members into fewer systems in a manner that cannot be gamed/manipulated by smaller groups (and therefore not break/allow for abuse of ISK/hr/player/system).
In particular these benefits should be roughly on par with the income/player of smaller alliances in backwater constellations. The idea should be to neither encourage nor discourage large OR small alliance sov. If you want to be a large alliance you should be able to scale up your space roughly linearly with your membership so you don't NEED to sprawl in order to maintain pilot income levels. But likewise your system income/player shouldn't be harshly punished for NOT being a massive bloc, or else we just end up with the pressures to blue we have today.
EDIT: which pretty much all comes back to carrier ratting and anomaly distrubtions, since moon goo is not a line member income stream. |
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:23:58 -
[254] - Quote
Looking to buy supers to refine into minerals for these new mods. |
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:24:05 -
[255] - Quote
Maya Cinderfort wrote:CCP pls pls don't make me cry.
ok enough QQ
i think the idea of having an event to capture something is good in it self, but BUT the mindnuming bordom we had while we grided down our first few systems was & still is needed. you allways knew when someone attacked your TCU for lols he couldn'T do that much alone. or any structure for that matter, now a single person can come in and troll the living **** out of you.
we have some ppl roaming our systems who would fit into that role quite well. but i don't want to check on **** every 10 minutes just to avoid a stupid dragged out node capturing event.
can't we just all agree that null is together with incursions w-space one of the most profitable areas to be around. now getting new players there without much effort isn't gonna help anyone except those looking for easy kills. maybe make lowsec more entertaining for pve purposes, flood some ppl out & leave null for those who want to play longer than 4 hours a day.
if you go through with this then i hope it brings the goldenfleet times back, but probably unlikely since powerplayers can still drop a few caps on each node there is to capture.
Here's my Idea: Use those capture events for something more fun, more engaging, not life threatening, maybe make it somekind of pvp anomaly spawning in a constellation similar to incrusions giving defenders a bonus (small one). when someone wins the event:
Defender wins = no upkeep until next event spawns Attacker wins = upkeep is doubled & the doubled part payed to the Winner
when no one engages in this at all (talking far out systems) upkeep stays normal. (by not at all i mean no hostile actions taken after reinforcement ends)
BUT (again i know):
if you want to use the node event for sov:
make lets say 1 cap & below node 2 BS and below node 1 BC or cruiser and below (no T3) & 1 destroyer frigat only node. that way alot more ships get used & even expierenced frigat FWers can find a place in an alliance, that is not tackle.
everyone keeps saying 10 minutes, ITS ONLY 10 MINUTES IF YOU HAVE 0 INDICES. so yes they can take the systems you have but don't use, if you use them no it's more like 30-40 minutes. which you should be able to kill him in. |
Touchie Mc TwiddleHands
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:24:41 -
[256] - Quote
First off: great stuff, finally at least SOME way for small gangs to provoke a response.
However, there are some issues:
With these changes it is about time to implement a proper "Coalition" system. A lot of players are complaining about the prime time issue, preventing them from taking part at huge sov battles of their alliances due to timezone restrictions. This is a valid point of course, but there is also a very easy solution (that has been mentioned here multiple times already) - splitting current alliances into timezone branches. You can still be a member of Goonswarm, Brave Collective or whatever - your alliance name simply changes to "Goonswarm EU" etc. Of course this is still effort and does not have the greatest looks, but people are going to have to, and WILL adapt as usual, just like after Phoebe. However, CCP should support this transition as much as possible, by adding a proper Coalition system. Alliances should be able to create and join Coalitions (Hey, you could even name your coalition Brave Collective etc so you can still 100% identify with your buddies in other timezones!). They would be visible in-game just like alliances, and provide basic management features such as a Coalition chat, an overview state ("pilot is in my coallition"), standings and, maybe, shared access to the new sovereignity overview. This would allow the current big alliances to keep their names and identities aswell as provide sov combat to members of all timezones.
Another issue I see are Entosis links, particularly the T2 version on Frigate and (T3) Destroyer hulls. 10km/s Interceptors with lockrange mods are bad enough, but a 20+ km/s Svipul with T2 Entosis would be close to invulnerable. Therefore these links (or, at the very least, the long range T2 version) should be limited to Cruiser hulls and above - smaller ships would still play a big role in the new sov fights by scouting Command Nodes and intercepting hostile ships with Entosis links. |
Elona Solette
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:24:52 -
[257] - Quote
Could I suggest that the 'prime time' setting is optional?
Forcing some alliances who may be comfortable with defending across all time zones into a form of TZ apartheid seems a little counter productive in a social game.
I understand the logic behind the TZ setting but don't think making it optional, providing more choices, whilst retaining the overall aim of allowing smaller groups to hold space would be a problem. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2805
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:25:13 -
[258] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:Will notifications go out like they do now? Will the entire alliance get a mail that something of theirs is under attack so they can dispatch a fleet to go defend it? Or will it get RF'd and then we get notifications about RF status and the like? This is a good question. If notifications continue to go out the moment someone invades/attacks another groups sov it will undermine this new system. I can see how groups can be baited into fights if they are too quick to react to an attack. Also, minimal time investment by "attackers" to bait a fight as well.
Small groups will not be able to hold sov indefinitely, but they will be able to take sov or at least get some fights. If the large alliance brings too much, then they just bugger off and blue ball. Over time, after several rounds of blue balls, the larger alliance will forget about non-critical systems and prioritize which systems they want to spend effort.
Every now and then they'll steamroll an area they don't use, but eventually those systems will flip back to the locals who will use blue balling + easy timers to get what they want.
Also, cockbag gate camps FTW.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
481
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:25:42 -
[259] - Quote
I have finally read all of that blog and so far the proposed system seems like a solid proposal for replacing the current sov system.
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
306
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:26:42 -
[260] - Quote
I really like these changes a lot. |
|
Rita Zechs
Large Rodent Hunters
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:27:31 -
[261] - Quote
The important metric regarding the success of a sovereighty mechanics change was the amount of goon tears.
This looks like an awesome change. |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:28:06 -
[262] - Quote
Touchie Mc TwiddleHands wrote:First off: great stuff, finally at least SOME way for small gangs to provoke a response.
However, there are some issues:
With these changes it is about time to implement a proper "Coalition" system. A lot of players are complaining about the prime time issue, preventing them from taking part at huge sov battles of their alliances due to timezone restrictions. This is a valid point of course, but there is also a very easy solution (that has been mentioned here multiple times already) - splitting current alliances into timezone branches. You can still be a member of Goonswarm, Brave Collective or whatever - your alliance name simply changes to "Goonswarm EU" etc. Of course this is still effort and does not have the greatest looks, but people are going to have to, and WILL adapt as usual, just like after Phoebe. However, CCP should support this transition as much as possible, by adding a proper Coalition system. Alliances should be able to create and join Coalitions (Hey, you could even name your coalition Brave Collective etc so you can still 100% identify with your buddies in other timezones!). They would be visible in-game just like alliances, and provide basic management features such as a Coalition chat, an overview state ("pilot is in my coallition"), standings and, maybe, shared access to the new sovereignity overview. This would allow the current big alliances to keep their names and identities aswell as provide sov combat to members of all timezones.
Another issue I see are Entosis links, particularly the T2 version on Frigate and (T3) Destroyer hulls. 10km/s Interceptors with lockrange mods are bad enough, but a 20+ km/s Svipul with T2 Entosis would be close to invulnerable. Therefore these links (or, at the very least, the long range T2 version) should be limited to Cruiser hulls and above - smaller ships would still play a big role in the new sov fights by scouting Command Nodes and intercepting hostile ships with Entosis links.
If all these people are so similar and want to do everything together, why don't they either (a) fold into the same alliance or (b) fold into the same corp?
Also they said the entosis links would make you stationary while active I believe, much like a cyno except you can't receive remote reps. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
452
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:28:37 -
[263] - Quote
MiliasColds wrote:everyone keeps saying 10 minutes, ITS ONLY 10 MINUTES IF YOU HAVE 0 INDICES. so yes they can take the systems you have but don't use, if you use them no it's more like 30-40 minutes. which you should be able to kill him in. systems with mining indexes are few and far between so you're looking at systems with mil5 and sov5 as your best-case scenario, and most important systems actually have too many people in local to effectively watch local while ratting so their mildex is not at 5 |
Maya Cinderfort
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:28:38 -
[264] - Quote
MiliasColds wrote:
everyone keeps saying 10 minutes, ITS ONLY 10 MINUTES IF YOU HAVE 0 INDICES. so yes they can take the systems you have but don't use, if you use them no it's more like 30-40 minutes. which you should be able to kill him in.
points is i still don'T want to check after one red doing his thing. like realy no ty |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:28:53 -
[265] - Quote
Trii Seo wrote:I would like to correct the statement that it's a CTF. It is, in fact, a totally different gamemode - Domination.
Sooo uh, to provide some actual criticism instead of just saying how bad Domination was, I'll ask a few questions:
- How does the following system create an incentive to go and take sov? - How does the following system in any way benefit "the small guy" who is "trying to carve out his own system?"
The effort to distribute one system being captured over a constellation to take advantage of its layout is a good idea, in fact - it might be the only good idea out of it. As it stands, unless I'm misinterpreting it, the entire system would reward evading a fight rather than encouraging it.
We will not question Dear Leader when he gives us a sandbox to play in, and we will not allow common sense to creep into this argument
|
Olya Tsarev
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:29:07 -
[266] - Quote
I do love the complaining these dev blogs generate. It's usually the same four or five people sharing their hyperbolic responses. ^_^ |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:29:54 -
[267] - Quote
the sargent wrote:Total Newbie wrote:the sargent wrote:Cheyennes wrote:the sargent wrote:It's funny, everyone tells CCP they want a occupancy based SOV system. When CCP comes up with a system that takes the basic concept of "occupancy" and uses it as a mechanic everyone start whining about how it will ruin everything. Seriously guys calm down if it doesn't work out guess what? it will be fixed in a couple of months because of the shorter release schedule. Give the system a chance first before going "IT'S THE END!"
I mean seriously every time CCP changes something to do will null sec its "the end of null sec as we know it," and yes that is true but just because it's the end of one system doesn't mean the new system is going to be complete trash.
Damn, sorry for the minor wall of text. Says the guy with no 0.0 history in his employment history. You're right I don't have any 0.0 employment history. Didn't feel like joining one of the big power blocs and small independent corps can't exist in 0.0 space. With some adjusting this system could actually allow smaller groups to effectively claim SOV somewhere and keep it. Is what CCP proposing perfect probably not. However, for the first time I'm actually considering 0.0 space as a viable place i would want to go to and live in for an extended period of time, and isn't that the point of all this. To get more people to want to fly out to 0.0 space? How can you comment about it if you haven't experienced it? If you do not understand it in its current form, then quite frankly you have no clue about the ramifications that will even more, negatively affect the little guy Please explain how it will negatively affect the little guy. I'm being genuinely curious here not a smart a$$. like I said it could use some adjusting but as a basis to start from it seems easier for new people to get into the game of SOV since it doesn't require several capital ships plus full support fleet to take down one system. Again i don't think its perfect but from the outside looking in it looks like it actually has some potential after some tweaking.
I sent you an eve mail.
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:30:28 -
[268] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss 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~ Not emptying quoting.
I'm convinced that every sov holder that cries about lack of benefits doesn't want to actually fight anyone, they just want it to be easy to sit on what they have and continue making money and not fighting people. This isn't to say that there is no merit to the 'lack of benefits' claim, but no one complaining about it has presented one yet. |
Resgo
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:30:42 -
[269] - Quote
So, I can understand the desire to spread out conflicts to avoid 4000 ships in a ti-di CF. How does this work to prevent encouraging a game of stealth bombers where a new strategic fleet concept of 250 stealth bombers going out and attacking 250 different systems simultaneously? This sounds like an awesome setup for constant annoyance and trolling. Coordinating a defense of all those systems and travel time involved would take more time than the capture. Now having the vulnerability windows also pretty much means home turf advantage for defenders but also assumes the alliance in question has a prime time. Many of the larger alliances have multiple and forcing a choice screws some of the players and is more likely involve choosing prime times that are less convenient for potential attackers then based upon your own availability. With the ease of flipping systems how does that affect things like super capital production (assuming with these mechanics there are any reason to have them or build them)? Since you don't destroy I-Hubs is the payment for sov upgrades going to be on an hourly basis rather than current time table? What incentive is there to take the I-Hub? If someone else has to pay the upgrade bills and the TCU determines system ownership an upgraded I-Hub sounds like a liability rather than a bonus. I get its benefits without actually having to pay for it if I let the other guy keep it. |
Nyan Lafisques
Fairly Ganked
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:31:24 -
[270] - Quote
Maya Cinderfort wrote:MiliasColds wrote:
everyone keeps saying 10 minutes, ITS ONLY 10 MINUTES IF YOU HAVE 0 INDICES. so yes they can take the systems you have but don't use, if you use them no it's more like 30-40 minutes. which you should be able to kill him in.
points is i still don'T want to check after one red doing his thing. like realy no ty
So basically you don't want to have to protect your space? |
|
Baron Holbach
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:32:45 -
[271] - Quote
RIP capitals, honestly CCP - give any reason way to use capitals in future
also this station structures disable/enable seems like ultimate grief scheme, the main things to worry in my option would be various industry upgrades (factory and lab services)
pleas also add option to remove upgrades from ihub (or at-least disable them somehow to remove massive cost linked with some upgrades - like jb or jammer upgrades)
|
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
514
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:33:07 -
[272] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:Mostlyharmlesss 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~ Not emptying quoting. I'm convinced that every sov holder that cries about lack of benefits doesn't want to actually fight anyone, they just want it to be easy to sit on what they have and continue making money and not fighting people. This isn't to say that there is no merit to the 'lack of benefits' claim, but no one complaining about it has presented one yet.
No, it's a conflict driver. Find me a war in history that was had "because it was fun". If you de-incentive the reasons to hold space, null will become pretty boring after a while. Simply having your flag in space is not enough. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
880
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:34:15 -
[273] - Quote
"The result of all these design features is that the best method to exert control over a structure with the Entosis Link is to establish effective military control over the grid around the target structure."
And there you go -> N+1 mechanic trap pit spotted. Will be interesting to see if the 4X capture speed mechanic is enough to kill N+1
Everything else - looks good to me.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
630
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:35:23 -
[274] - Quote
Tia Aves wrote:If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit. /r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
waltari
Mortis Angelus The Kadeshi
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:36:02 -
[275] - Quote
So basically sov nullsec turns into some weird form of Faction Warfare with a benefit to literaly nobody, full of 24/7 hellcamped freeports filled with trolls who doesnt realy want to hold the SOV anyway (due to reason mentioned earlier), whilst denying the current holders possibility to protect it effectively due to split timezones, great concept realy, keep up good work. |
Nyan Lafisques
Fairly Ganked
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:36:31 -
[276] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Tia Aves wrote:If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit. /r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite.
Grrr goons. People there enjoy the changes not because of goons, but because they believe these changes are good. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
306
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:36:39 -
[277] - Quote
Saidin Thor wrote:I'm not sure CCP has ever had to deal with IHhub logistics first-hand. Being easy to destroy may or may not be a good thing, but IHubs are a HUGE pain to place and upgrade right now. Bigger upgrades AND the IHubs themselves can only be transported in a freighter right now. There's no way a little alliance has the logistics capacity to regularly replace IHubs that roaming gangs will be destroying just for the lulz unless that changes.
If you want to stick with the "but sov logistics should be hard" mantra, then at least resizing them for jump freighters would be better than nothing. Ideally, making IHubs and their upgrades Blockade Runner size would open up a lot of options for the little guy.
Another change related to IHubs I would suggest is allowing IHubs to be placed on moons (so you can place them next to POSes). This gives an alliance the OPTION to have a VERY LOW barrier to messing with system upgrades. A POS isn't particularly difficult to defang even with a small group, but gives an IHub some level of protection against marauders that are just trying to salt the fields.
Also the premise that defenders will regularly use jump bridges during capture events has to be a joke, right? Have the CCP employees that live in null sec ever tried chaining jump bridges since the fatigue changes went through? Let us know how that worked out for them for the subsequent two weeks.
Yeah if they intend to go on with these new mechanics then ihubs and all of their upgrades need to be reduced in size to fit in a JF. Might want to think about introducing some of those new upgrades when these changes go live because right now it's really borderline as far as it being worth it to live in null to make isk. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
452
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:36:40 -
[278] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Tia Aves wrote:If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit. /r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite. when it comes to this, its not so much an anti-cfc circlejerk as a bunch of people who no longer hold sov
people who hold sov but hate us realize how bad this is |
Proton Stars
OREfull
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:37:16 -
[279] - Quote
To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
616
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:37:27 -
[280] - Quote
This primetime ****. The **** are the Australians going to do?
Also we can now rat 20 hours a day while only worrying about that 4 hour window when **** becomes vulnerable. What.
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
259
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:37:45 -
[281] - Quote
Touchie Mc TwiddleHands wrote:However, CCP should support this transition as much as possible, by adding a proper Coalition system. Alliances should be able to create and join Coalitions (Hey, you could even name your coalition Brave Collective etc so you can still 100% identify with your buddies in other timezones!). They would be visible in-game just like alliances, and provide basic management features such as a Coalition chat, an overview state ("pilot is in my coallition"), standings and, maybe, shared access to the new sovereignity overview. This would allow the current big alliances to keep their names and identities aswell as provide sov combat to members of all timezones.
Meh, I'm going to give the same answer to this that is so prevalent when carebears ask for social corps in highsec... "that is what chat channels are for". |
Maya Cinderfort
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:37:52 -
[282] - Quote
Nyan Lafisques wrote:Maya Cinderfort wrote:MiliasColds wrote:
everyone keeps saying 10 minutes, ITS ONLY 10 MINUTES IF YOU HAVE 0 INDICES. so yes they can take the systems you have but don't use, if you use them no it's more like 30-40 minutes. which you should be able to kill him in.
points is i still don'T want to check after one red doing his thing. like realy no ty So basically you don't want to have to protect your space?
ofc but a single guy should just not be able to do anything in the first place it's a system not worlds collide lvl 4
& again i like the idea of fighting over nodes, maybe in class limited nodes to make it "different"
BUT getting a system should allways be boring, because the reward you get is better.
out of eve example here.
grinding eggs for a netherwing drake in WoW for maybe 30 hours straight sure wasn't fun but the reward was awesome.
same goes for systems. |
Current Habit
Get LP or Die Trying
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:38:04 -
[283] - Quote
Is the implementation of Command nodes a first step towards allowing EVE:Legion and EVE:Valkyrie people to influence sov by capturing nodes on the ground or inside special 'Valkyrie-arenas' (if/when they are ever released)? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2045
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:38:06 -
[284] - Quote
also what happens when a character in an NPC corp tries to use this module? does it count and can they actually take anything? |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:38:08 -
[285] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:Mostlyharmlesss 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~ Not emptying quoting. I'm convinced that every sov holder that cries about lack of benefits doesn't want to actually fight anyone, they just want it to be easy to sit on what they have and continue making money and not fighting people. This isn't to say that there is no merit to the 'lack of benefits' claim, but no one complaining about it has presented one yet. No, it's a conflict driver. Find me a war in history that was had "because it was fun". If you de-incentive the reasons to hold space, null will become pretty boring after a while. Simply having your flag in space is not enough.
War in real history or a war in Eve history, because they are completely separate things. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
79
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:38:30 -
[286] - Quote
a small part of my wonders if CCP get liek ultra hard nipples when they release these major change blogs, rarely are they filled with OMG amazing, its 85% WTF and 15% lol i love the tears these guys are generating.
CCP = the cable company in that south park episode. |
Praisos Severasse
University of Caille Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:38:52 -
[287] - Quote
My eyes ARE BURNING!!! great changes!!! let be hell!!! at last more players will be active and not just zombie grunts... WELL DONE CCP when it gets polished i think it will be great!!!!! |
Yugo 60
Cyberdyne Systems Co.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:38:54 -
[288] - Quote
Problem: SOV vaule Ok, you made sov taking and harassing sov holders easier. Where are the bufss for actually holding the space? Why to hold SOV at all when you can just live in npc null and troll residents of nearby regions. I'm expecting major buffs to nullsec so that it's worth going through all that defensive activity to keep space.
Problem: Supercaps With proposed changes supercaps lose their role pretty much. Expecting a major re-purpose of supers (and maybe dreads) to make them viable or we can just selfdestruct them for lolz.
Problem: Timezones If your goal is to have 3-4 parts of space with exclusive EU/US/RUS/AU timezone sov holders then your idea is good. If not, CHANGE TIMEZONE IDEA.
Problem: Interceptors Having "uncatchable" fleets of interceptors troll reinforcing everything in the region (or two) during one evening every single time that some structure is out of RF just for the heck of it (and to make sov holders form up for def all the time) is not what I would call a good mechanics. CHANGE INTERCEPTORS to make them catchable or give them inability of RFing.
Problem: Cloaky AFKers SOV activitiy directly tied to defending sov is cool. But first wave of invading someones SOV will be having 3-4 AFK cloaked "l33t pvpers" in every system of one constellation for a few days to drop their mining/ratting activities. It is not really what I would call interesting and fair mechanic. CHANGE AFK CLOAKING. |
Chal0ner
Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi
155
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:39:18 -
[289] - Quote
Need to re-read. First reaction. Prime time sounds like a basically broken idea before it even was launched. It will allienate and segregate alliances with both EU and US tz players. Someone is going to suffer.
More guerilla warfare is good on the other hand. (As long as they stay the **** out of Delve )
Will re-read though. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1142
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:39:52 -
[290] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Tia Aves wrote:If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit. /r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite. when it comes to this, its not so much an anti-cfc circlejerk as a bunch of people who no longer hold sov people who hold sov but hate us realize how bad this is
Confirming I both hate goons and think that the 4 hour zone is a terrible idea, as a US player in an EU alliance. |
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:40:07 -
[291] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Tia Aves wrote:If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit. /r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite.
It's an anti-CFC circlejerk because the CFC is one of the things that are killing the game in it's current state. |
Nyan Lafisques
Fairly Ganked
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:40:08 -
[292] - Quote
Maya Cinderfort wrote:Nyan Lafisques wrote:Maya Cinderfort wrote:MiliasColds wrote:
everyone keeps saying 10 minutes, ITS ONLY 10 MINUTES IF YOU HAVE 0 INDICES. so yes they can take the systems you have but don't use, if you use them no it's more like 30-40 minutes. which you should be able to kill him in.
points is i still don'T want to check after one red doing his thing. like realy no ty So basically you don't want to have to protect your space? ofc but a single guy should just not be able to do anything in the first place it's a system not worlds collide lvl 4 & again i like the idea of fighting over nodes, maybe in class limited nodes to make it "different" BUT getting a system should allways be boring, because the reward you get is better. out of eve example here. grinding eggs for a netherwing drake in WoW for maybe 30 hours straight sure wasn't fun but the reward was awesome. same goes for systems.
That single guy won't do **** if you have any defensive bonus. He won't show up for the timer, and if you can't kill a single guy out of your thousand+ alliance in your prime time than I don't know what to say... |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:40:44 -
[293] - Quote
Since the proposed change is out, I would think that the meeting minutes of The current CSM and it's members who are supporting this be published as well. The NDA seems to be null and void now. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1738
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:40:50 -
[294] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?
They know about this
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
630
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:40:52 -
[295] - Quote
Nyan Lafisques wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Tia Aves wrote:If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit. /r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite. Grrr goons. People there enjoy the changes not because of goons, but because they believe these changes are good. People are entirely free to hold beliefs that are wrong.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Olya Tsarev
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:41:10 -
[296] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?
I heard Sion was a big fan of it and posted about it on the CFC forums before it was announced. You know, NDA leaks and all that.
I can't really provide any evidence but I've heard you don't need to provide any to make these sort of statements. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
163
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:41:13 -
[297] - Quote
MiliasColds wrote:a note for out of timezone players (from declared prime time)
you still raise indices which makes things easier to defend. you can still help with capture events that are ongoing past prime time. you can be useful attacking other alliances whose prime time aligns with your TZ you can assist allies you can contribute to general logistics you can attrack and reinforces POS and stations services
doesn't seem like nothing to me
Your heathen logic has no place here! Begone foul witch!
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:41:23 -
[298] - Quote
Sounds awesome +1
If you hold too much space you'll be spending your whole primetime fighting off little bands all over the place annoying you with a quick Entosis link to test out your localised defences.
If you 're actually using the space then you should have a defensive fleet within range to quickly react. If not then you've now got a timer to chase in a couple of days.
I'm not sure if 4hrs is long enough for the primetime, 6-8hrs should still be coverable by most alliances and allows multi TZ cooperation more easily.
Also I might be dumb but did they actually say what the winning conditions were for a command point chase? I know 10-0 was an auto win, is it just to win by 10pts at any stage or something more complex? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
661
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:41:36 -
[299] - Quote
Still mulling over a number of things on how they wil pan out, but overall I like it, its a shake up mechanism, a pretty big one at that.
People should not get too hung up over TZ, you will get fights when you attack other people which are not in your alliances main TZ, you will be defending your structures during your TZ against people putting it into RF and doing so in small gang combat.
I need to read it through a couple of times more in certain areas and work it through, but a lot more small fights will be generated from this and hard nosed players that want to muck around with poor systems can carve those out.
Just make sure to remove POS reporting please...
Ella's Snack bar
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
654
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:42:02 -
[300] - 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
I'm sure your AFK-tars will be able to kill enough rats to make up for your lack of miners.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
|
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
151
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:42:13 -
[301] - Quote
Just from the first glance: With Tidi we are talking about 4-5 hours per commandnode for an attacker, while the defenders have way less plus the advantage of being able to avoid the enemy fleet via titan- and jumpbridge. Just keep throwing suicidesquads at the attacker to keep the Tidi up.
Also this system favors alliances over both corps and coalitions. While now a defensivefleet consisting of 5 different alliances is viable after these changes you could just target the one sovholding alliance and then they can-¦t use capture anything. It will probably kill coalitions but not because they split into smaller groups but because f.e. the entire CFC could just join GSF. Just for safety and sharing of the defensive workload. |
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:42:29 -
[302] - Quote
Chal0ner wrote:More guerilla warfare is good on the other hand. (As long as they stay the **** out of Delve ) PIZZA is gonna come back and take Delve with interceptors and AFK cloaking, with this new system they literally could.
|
Pie Napple
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:42:40 -
[303] - Quote
I see a problem with with the primetime thing as there is no actual way to make real coalitions in game.
For alliances with mixed timezones, like brave collective, there is no way of splitting up into timezones and splitting up the sovereignty. If the split would happen, nothing in the game ties the coalition together. It would not be one brave any more, it would be multiple. It would all have to be handled by standings. No common chat channels (has to be created and managed manually).
I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:42:43 -
[304] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Proton Stars wrote:To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?
They know about this
Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid? |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:43:03 -
[305] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Sounds awesome +1
If you hold too much space you'll be spending your whole primetime fighting off little bands all over the place annoying you with a quick Entosis link to test out your localised defences.
If you 're actually using the space then you should have a defensive fleet within range to quickly react. If not then you've now got a timer to react to.
Not sure if 4hrs is long enough for the primetime, 6-8hrs should still be coverable by most alliances and allows multi TZ cooperation more easily.
Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
452
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:43:25 -
[306] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: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 I'm sure your AFK-tars will be able to kill enough rats to make up for your lack of miners. that's not possible under this system which is why its bad
once mildex is 5 no amount of anything you do that is "occupying" your space besides mining will help |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
168
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:43:39 -
[307] - Quote
Xenuria wrote:I support this.
you want to be on csm cause you felt hats are more important
I don't support you or this sov change.
|
Tung Yoggi
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:44:50 -
[308] - Quote
Good stuff, now make sov holding actually fun and useful to have through the use of new and interesting mechanics. |
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:45:08 -
[309] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Sounds awesome +1
If you hold too much space you'll be spending your whole primetime fighting off little bands all over the place annoying you with a quick Entosis link to test out your localised defences.
If you 're actually using the space then you should have a defensive fleet within range to quickly react. If not then you've now got a timer to react to.
Not sure if 4hrs is long enough for the primetime, 6-8hrs should still be coverable by most alliances and allows multi TZ cooperation more easily. Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.
wormholes ? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
452
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:45:12 -
[310] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote: Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?
they certainly aren't posting in here supporting it which says something |
|
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:45:21 -
[311] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Proton Stars wrote:To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?
They know about this Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?
The only real functions of the CSM these days are to buffer community responses so there's no more summers of rage, to streamline feedback on what devs pick up up from player ideas and to endorse what comes out of CCP in exchange for some minor tidbits of niche concepts which CCP would have done anyway.
|
Hendrink Collie
Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:47:55 -
[312] - Quote
As as member of a mid-sized sov holding alliance that actually use their space, I'm generally ok with the changes. Entities that dont use space shouldn't be able to hold it, and the space should be easier to take. So yeah, this is good news. Also loving the usability of small roaming gangs to disrupt enemy functions, and if they are lazy, threaten their sov holdings.
Only gripe from me is that there should be at least some more benefit in strongly holding a system. But overall, not bad. Could be a lot worse. |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
200
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:48:01 -
[313] - Quote
Meh. Not what I had hoped. I had hoped for my activity based and less pointless modules and minigames. Also, 4 hour window gives major bonuses to large coalitions which can span all timezones and makes it nigh impossible for people with lives and work schedules.
However, I am pretty stokked about the activity in a system making it harder to take......except that yall gave essentially infinitely more power to AFK campers. Not the ones which actually attack people and things, but the ones who login a DT and dont' log off until the server kicks them off the next day. The entire time the character does nothing.
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
|
Olya Tsarev
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:49:57 -
[314] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Proton Stars wrote: Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?
they certainly aren't posting in here supporting it which says something
Or, and this may be a more sensible thing based in reality and not overwrought hyperbole, they have other things happening in their life that prevent them from posting on a forum about a change in an internet spaceship game that isn't really as important as their TPS report. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3173
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:50:19 -
[315] - Quote
Two questions: 1) I did not see how the tug-of-war actually works. You gave one example of what happens if only one side shows up (10 captures and you win). What is required to win when there are two sides fighting? When there are several sides fighting? Just what is the tug-of war mechanic?
2) "Anyone is free to deploy a TCU". OK, if 5 alliances all drop a TCU right at the moment the old one explodes, who gets the system? The fastest fingers? The alliance with the best internet connection to the servers?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:50:22 -
[316] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote:Meh. Not what I had hoped. I had hoped for my activity based and less pointless modules and minigames. Also, 4 hour window gives major bonuses to large coalitions which can span all timezones and makes it nigh impossible for people with lives and work schedules.
did you miss that non alliance members can't actually defend, other than killing attacker ? |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
262
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:50:24 -
[317] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:Also this system favors alliances over both corps and coalitions. While now a defensivefleet consisting of 5 different alliances is viable after these changes you could just target the one sovholding alliance and then they can-¦t use capture anything. It will probably kill coalitions but not because they split into smaller groups but because f.e. the entire CFC could just join GSF. Just for safety and sharing of the defensive workload.
The idea that people with disparate identities, goals, and histories will smash together their alliances at the level that current blue coalitions exist today is invalid. It's why shifting the focus back to alliance level control is key to curbing bloc creep. People happily and willingly blue up to any and all coalitions on a moment's notice because there is really no disadvantage. You don't give up your identity, your command/control structure, or put your alliance in ANY kind of risk. And yet you get huge advantages because the existing mechanics fundamentally reward large blue coalition structure grinding fleets (EDIT: or more accurately, rewards supercap blob deterrents to large structure grinding fleets).
By refocusing this mechanic to alliance level control ONLY and removing the benefit of belonging to a blue coalition, suddenly there is much less benefit to hitching your wagon to a large blue group. More importantly, the idea that the disparate alliances of, say, CFC, would all suddenly join GSF alliance to consolidate is insane. There are many and varied reasons why those alliances aren't part of GSF already, and forcing them to actually put on the GSF tag if they want to benefit GSF sov is going to be a HUGE negative pressure on growing bloc sizes. A lot of people in blue coalitions don't actually like each other very much and only the overwhelming advantages to structure grinding (or deterrent to such) are sufficient to get them to willingly identify with a coalition; force them to adopt an actual alliance mantle while removing the scale of the benefit and rivalries will flare up. |
Masumi Vega
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:50:27 -
[318] - Quote
why do they keep breaking this game, catering to the instant gratification crowd. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
169
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:50:57 -
[319] - Quote
CCP in all their might.. still never even mentions on how they will deal with AFK CLOAKY CAMPING in null sec
as I previously mentioned "we'll all end up AFK CLOAKING left and right"
therefore with this plan.
A- Cloaky Camper begins camping a system.. dropping its indexes allowing for easy take over with frigate fleets
this is what CCP wants and calls it active gameplay
thanks for the direction to another game and company ill spend with them instead of you ccp..
congrats on losing money
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:51:22 -
[320] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Proton Stars wrote:To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?
They know about this Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?
Probably the first option, because even though this has some concerning parts (i.e. primetime), it's way the **** better than the system we have now. |
|
suicide
The Exit Plan Test Alliance Please Ignore
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:51:23 -
[321] - Quote
I like the idea of primetime in concept as it allows a group of pilots who play during a certain time a window where they can manage their time and play maybe 7-11pm. It will keep people engaged.
I love the fact that things are changing, and the changes seem interesting. If CCP commits to continuous review and balance and changes going forward then I think it is a good start. There are some parts which may prove to alienate certain TZs inside of alliances but the only way to see is to play out the changes.
Now can we start distributing some carrots that make 0.0 more liveable, AKA player stations, alliance income, higher player density, DUST / legion / Valkerie kickbacks, mining, industry, multiple stations per system, etc?
Never stop releasing. |
Maya Cinderfort
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:51:39 -
[322] - Quote
Nyan Lafisques wrote:
That single guy won't do **** if you have any defensive bonus. He won't show up for the timer, and if you can't kill a single guy out of your thousand+ alliance in your prime time than I don't know what to say...
if i haven't read it wrong the node event still spawns end needs to be done in order to secure you space, ok they'll only take 20-30 mins to do so, what if you ahve to do 30-40 of them.
& yeah he will show up for the timer as he roams our systems for 6-8 hours a day. & yes we are a small alliance/coalition & we live surrounded by reds so they also have a place to dock.
|
Tia Aves
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:51:44 -
[323] - Quote
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:
As an upside, you can check the map for areas where the locals are likely to be ready to defend their territory at your scheduled roaming hour.
Essentially what I thought. Unless sov was monopolised by a certain TZ (unlikely to be possible with the new system) there should always be targets in your TZ. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
262
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:52:40 -
[324] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:A- Cloaky Camper begins camping a system.. dropping its indexes allowing for easy take over with frigate fleets
this is what CCP wants and calls it active gameplay
Which will lead to sov being grabbed by people who are NOT terrified of being in space while AFK cloaky campers sit in local. Evolution will fix this problem for us.
|
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:52:49 -
[325] - Quote
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.
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
654
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:53:21 -
[326] - Quote
JohnMonty wrote:"Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges,"
Best line in the whole thing lol
I very much like the proposal, but yea jump bridges won't be that much help with fatigue... just have to plan your use of them well I suppose.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Elona Solette
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:54:08 -
[327] - Quote
Pie Napple wrote:I see a problem with with the primetime thing as there is no actual way to make real coalitions in game.
For alliances with mixed timezones, like brave collective, there is no way of splitting up into timezones and splitting up the sovereignty. If the split would happen, nothing in the game ties the coalition together. It would not be one brave any more, it would be multiple. It would all have to be handled by standings. No common chat channels (has to be created and managed manually).
I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions.
This is explicitly designed to break up coalitions not encourage them. |
Mekenioc
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:54:21 -
[328] - Quote
Oh goody, my available gameplay just went to 0 if im not im my alliances "prime time" |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:55:45 -
[329] - Quote
Despite it taking longer, I'm not a fan of a capital ship using that new module. |
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:56:02 -
[330] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:CCP in all their might.. still never even mentions on how they will deal with AFK CLOAKY CAMPING in null sec
as I previously mentioned "we'll all end up AFK CLOAKING left and right"
therefore with this plan.
A- Cloaky Camper begins camping a system.. dropping its indexes allowing for easy take over with frigate fleets
this is what CCP wants and calls it active gameplay
thanks for the direction to another game and company ill spend with them instead of you ccp..
congrats on losing money
i agree cloak invulnerability needs tweaks, do keep in mind they the target is june, and it is march, so there are plenty of opportunities to adjust cloaks and even capitals a bit before then |
|
Professor Headmash
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:56:21 -
[331] - Quote
So if I'm part of an alliance that holds Sov, instead of doing different things every time I log in to keep me intrested and logging into the game.....I'm going to be constantly flying around chasing captor gangs griefing our sov?
Seems legit. |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:56:38 -
[332] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Prime Time thing is a terrible idea, you'll see alliances start to lose their multinational flavour. If GSF sets prime time to US, what do all the EU guys do right? Contest EU-primetime alliances. |
Nyan Lafisques
Fairly Ganked
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:56:49 -
[333] - Quote
Mekenioc wrote:Oh goody, my available gameplay just went to 0 if im not im my alliances "prime time"
Yup, nothing to do in this game other than sov warfare. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1144
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:56:53 -
[334] - Quote
Mekenioc wrote:Oh goody, my available gameplay just went to 0 if im not im my alliances "prime time"
Yeah, isn't it great?
But don't worry, we still get to deal with the scutwork of bashing POS's so that they come out in our alliance primetime. Not that we will get to get on the KM's of those either, but still....l |
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
374
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:56:57 -
[335] - 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.
This is actually great. I'm contemplating possible "**** you"-fits right now. As I know from experience, there are a lot of empty systems all over sov.
And if I'm happen to find a completely empty system in an empty, unused and unloved constellation. Welp I guess I can teach them a lesson about defending their space against neutrals.
Looks like even a lone wolf like me can finally enter sov-warfare from the sidebenches! |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
882
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:57:03 -
[336] - Quote
Here's a twist: For the Attackers, some of the command nodes are duds. The defender knows which nodes are the effective ones.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
882
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:58:30 -
[337] - Quote
The Zombie F1 pusher died today.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1155
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:58:45 -
[338] - Quote
Pie Napple wrote:I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions.
Adorable Brave Newbie, Eve already is corp-based. That is why every alliance (with a brain) has a holding corp that manages all the bills, sov structures, and standings.
Looking at what was posted in the devblog, I'm pretty sure this is all contingent upon alliances becoming actual entities within the eve universe, not the current pseudo-status that they currently enjoy. The word "corporation" was not mentioned even once that I recall.
So here's a doozy of a question: What is going to happen to holding corps and sov transfers? And those renter corps that won't leave their own system unless the entire region is burning down around them? Does anyone think they will willingly defend their sov?
In this new system, even if 1000 titans came to defend, not one of them will be able to rep up the renter alliance's structures. The options are to shoot the attackers or annex the sov structure. I'm intensely curious to see how landlord alliances change their rental schemes to adapt to this new system.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:58:55 -
[339] - Quote
Owen Levanth wrote: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.
This is actually great. I'm contemplating possible "**** you"-fits right now. As I know from experience, there are a lot of empty systems all over sov. And if I'm happen to find a completely empty system in an empty, unused and unloved constellation. Welp I guess I can teach them a lesson about defending their space against neutrals. Looks like even a lone wolf like me can finally enter sov-warfare from the sidebenches!
note if it isn't a station then you don't actually take the sov you just kill theirs, you would still have to drop a tcu to claim it, or an ihub to get upgrades :P |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5192
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:59:06 -
[340] - Quote
So I've only skimmed it, will give it a good read later, but is the crux of this "Sovereignty will now be a game of king of the hill"? That's pretty underwhelming.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
Maya Cinderfort
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:59:15 -
[341] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Here's a twist: For the Attackers, some of the command nodes are duds. The defender knows which nodes are the effective ones.
then the attacker knows which ones by waiting a bit & seeing where defenders go |
Trii Seo
712
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:59:40 -
[342] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Shilalasar wrote:Also this system favors alliances over both corps and coalitions. While now a defensivefleet consisting of 5 different alliances is viable after these changes you could just target the one sovholding alliance and then they can-¦t use capture anything. It will probably kill coalitions but not because they split into smaller groups but because f.e. the entire CFC could just join GSF. Just for safety and sharing of the defensive workload. The idea that people with disparate identities, goals, and histories will smash together their alliances at the level that current blue coalitions exist today is invalid. It's why shifting the focus back to alliance level control is key to curbing bloc creep. People happily and willingly blue up to any and all coalitions on a moment's notice because there is really no disadvantage. You don't give up your identity, your command/control structure, or put your alliance in ANY kind of risk. And yet you get huge advantages because the existing mechanics fundamentally reward large blue coalition structure grinding fleets (EDIT: or more accurately, rewards supercap blob deterrents to large structure grinding fleets). By refocusing this mechanic to alliance level control ONLY and removing the benefit of belonging to a blue coalition, suddenly there is much less benefit to hitching your wagon to a large blue group. More importantly, the idea that the disparate alliances of, say, CFC, would all suddenly join GSF alliance to consolidate is insane. There are many and varied reasons why those alliances aren't part of GSF already, and forcing them to actually put on the GSF tag if they want to benefit GSF sov is going to be a HUGE negative pressure on growing bloc sizes. A lot of people in blue coalitions don't actually like each other very much and only the overwhelming advantages to structure grinding (or deterrent to such) are sufficient to get them to willingly identify with a coalition; force them to adopt an actual alliance mantle while removing the scale of the benefit and rivalries will flare up.
There always is, has been and will be a benefit of being in a coalition. Be that RSF, DRF, CFC or any other, it is a simple one: you have more dudes than the other guy.
And yes, evolution will take care of those who will make a claim for sov under the watchful eye of an AFK cloaker. They will quickly pad his killboard, having been hotdropped for not adapting and not obeying a rule set in stone: don't rat with an AFK cloaky in local.
Viva la revolution!
|
Olya Tsarev
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:59:54 -
[343] - Quote
Mekenioc wrote:Oh goody, my available gameplay just went to 0 if im not im my alliances "prime time"
You can contract your stuff to Olya Tsarev, I look forward to what assets you seem to have deemed unusable as a result of this change that is still being worked out.
Thanks in advance sweetheart. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1739
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:00:12 -
[344] - Quote
Professor Headmash wrote:So if I'm part of an alliance that holds Sov, instead of doing different things every time I log in to keep me intrested and logging into the game.....I'm going to be constantly flying around chasing captor gangs griefing our sov?
Seems legit. No one forces you to do so.
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Bonzair
Estamos Solos Corporation Estamos Solos Alliance.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:00:34 -
[345] - Quote
Give us possibility to choose version before production changes :D You'll see that all your 'features' are a piece of s*** |
Hendrink Collie
Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:00:58 -
[346] - Quote
Professor Headmash wrote:So if I'm part of an alliance that holds Sov, instead of doing different things every time I log in to keep me intrested and logging into the game.....I'm going to be constantly flying around chasing captor gangs griefing our sov?
Seems legit.
No offense, but if you can't quickly deal with a ceptor gang using a module on your sov structures, you shouldn't even bother holding sov. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
265
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:01:02 -
[347] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote: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.
I honestly wouldn't mind seeing Entosis Links restricted to BS hulls, and simply make this a fundamental part of the role for the struggling BS platforms. BS's are slow and hard to troll with, which would significantly reduce the roaming troll fleets that will be a reality of entosis link life. And expensive enough to not be purely throwaway. But BS's are still much more affordable than dreads and can be fielded in reasonable numbers as part of mixed-fleet compositions by small groups looking to take sov in backwater constellations.
IF this mechanic was extended to lowsec FW ihub flips, it would also potentially give a reason for BS hulls to exist in FW again.
Lastly, it would give a reason for dreads to continue to exist, since dropping a dread on an Entosis Link BS to blap it would still be a viable defensive tactic. In the current iteration, the ships fielding Entosis Links will be, for the most part, unhittable by caps. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
654
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:01:08 -
[348] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:also, did it not occur to you that sov war is now basically a giant frigate fleet, with little or no reason to use anything larger, due to guns playing no part in it, just mobility?
You have to sit around on the Command thingy for up to 40 minutes. Any cruiser fleet would shread a frigate fleet in 10-40 minutes. Thus it is not frigates online.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:02:00 -
[349] - Quote
Owen Levanth wrote:This is actually great. I'm contemplating possible "**** you"-fits right now. As I know from experience, there are a lot of empty systems all over sov. And if I'm happen to find a completely empty system in an empty, unused and unloved constellation. Welp I guess I can teach them a lesson about defending their space against neutrals. Looks like even a lone wolf like me can finally enter sov-warfare from the sidebenches!
Why would you take a tiny island in hostile territory you cant build the indices in and probably cant even pay the upkeep on. Thats the primary problem this whole system does not address. Why have sov? It turns the current system into a giant game of whack-a-mole and makes systems flip constantly for no benefit other than to grief and troll somebody.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:02:04 -
[350] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points. NPC null, interceptors, cyno jumps behind defensive walls, move ops outside of the Sov holders primetime when defences are weaker... that's just off the top of my head without any great experience in Nullsec logistics.
|
|
xartin
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:02:26 -
[351] - Quote
this part of the plan to lock vulnerability timers to a certain timezone is fundamentally flawed.
This will only create more strife, discontent and fragment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.
Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.
UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.
If this happened alliances recruiting standards could end up being locked into highly prejudicial preferences that could become heavily reliant on preferring certain active timezones. New players dont need any adfditional challenges to finding corporations that are a good ft for them .
Finding the right corp for you is already enough of a challenge.
Perhaps ccp should take a long hard look at implementing alliance wide recruiting tools as only corp level recruiting currently exists if they are in fact going to end up with prejudicial recruiting due to content exclusions from alliance or coalition wide vulnerability timers.
Additionally with the way that major coalitions blacklist players who allied with enemy coalitions (think CFC vs N3) entire timezones will be unable to find active content for they're active playtime due to being blacklisted for recruiting.
Noted a player generally doesn't get blacklisted unless they have done some really badstuff but this could make overcoming the allegiance factor much more of a challenge.
i'm all for change but excluding subscribers from content has far wider implications beyond just fragmenting the blue doughnut. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:02:44 -
[352] - Quote
claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.
20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2047
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:02:54 -
[353] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:Since the proposed change is out, I would think that the meeting minutes of The current CSM and it's members who are supporting this be published as well. The NDA seems to be null and void now. what makes you say that |
Elona Solette
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:03:19 -
[354] - Quote
Olya Tsarev wrote:Mekenioc wrote:Oh goody, my available gameplay just went to 0 if im not im my alliances "prime time" You can contract your stuff to Olya Tsarev, I look forward to what assets you seem to have deemed unusable as a result of this change that is still being worked out. Thanks in advance sweetheart.
You're going to end up with a lot of poorly fit ventures. |
Nomistrav
Aliastra Gallente Federation
286
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:03:21 -
[355] - Quote
Amateur opinion (I haven't done null-sec since the Second Catch War)
I like the system for what it's worth as it breaks up a lot of the blob game-play which gets really annoying, but only to a certain extent.. I think it illustrates a lot more opportunity for 'Wing' fights instead of 'Fleet' fights what with the command node mechanics. A few things that do worry me however are the exploding I-HUB... TCU is just fluff at this point to show who's name owns the system (rental turf is going to be interesting) but the exploding I-HUB with a potential for such a light amount of effort looks like it could get costly in a hurry. Especially when you consider how much effort actually goes into just getting those things functional.
Another thing that sort of gets me is the dependence on new high-slot modules and how they take longer on Capital Ships. While this is good for lessening the constant necessity of capital ships for sovereignty, it's sort of a major kicker for ships with utility highs and lessens the overall functionality for ships that don't. As expensive as they are (20m/80m if I read that correctly) it effectively means that whatever you fit them onto better have enough brick tank to be worth the effort. I see it changing fleet composition for the worse in that we're now going to have a lot of pressure to field other things by mandatory within a fleet doctrine.
T1 Frigates/Destroyers/Cruisers are going to pop way too easy to use them and the Entosis Links are far too expensive to even want to fit on those ships anyway. These ships are primarily the 'heart' of a small roaming gang as they're inexpensive and there's not much inherent risk in losing them. I think that the dependence on mandatory use of the Entosis Links are going to make small roams with the intent on damaging sov have more risk as a result but even still they're not going to be doing any real damage without a support fleet as they can only really attack station services without triggering command node gameplay.
It seems that what this boils down to is one large fleet filled to the brim with some players being shoe-horned into using a mandatory Entosis fit and that large fleet winds up having to split off to attack command nodes at some point. The blob-warfare is still there, just now the only difference is they have to break apart at some point. This gameplay mechanic doesn't do much to encourage small gang activity, just the dispersion of larger fleets.
Third Place Winner
Pod and Planet Fiction Contest YC114
|
Anthar Thebess
943
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:04:06 -
[356] - Quote
4h window - ok. But let alliance setup up to 15 days per month where there is no refout , because of the holidays. So i and 90% of my members have holidays in period A - don't force us to login because some other group will use this time to harass our space , as their have different believes and for them is normal day.
( need to work also about abusing this system, by moving systems between alt alliances to have 15 days of quiet times , every 16 days)
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:04:20 -
[357] - Quote
Elona Solette wrote:Pie Napple wrote:I see a problem with with the primetime thing as there is no actual way to make real coalitions in game.
For alliances with mixed timezones, like brave collective, there is no way of splitting up into timezones and splitting up the sovereignty. If the split would happen, nothing in the game ties the coalition together. It would not be one brave any more, it would be multiple. It would all have to be handled by standings. No common chat channels (has to be created and managed manually).
I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions. This is explicitly designed to break up coalitions not encourage them.
But won't break them up at all.....
Now, we'll use GoonWaffe.....
GW becomes basically a centralized Bank/repository and station flipping force....
Current blues lock down whatever system they want to control.... still coalition friendly...
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1695
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:04:34 -
[358] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Pie Napple wrote:I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions. Adorable Brave Newbie, Eve already is corp-based. That is why every alliance (with a brain) has a holding corp that manages all the bills, sov structures, and standings. Looking at what was posted in the devblog, I'm pretty sure this is all contingent upon alliances becoming actual entities within the eve universe, not the current pseudo-status that they currently enjoy. The word "corporation" was not mentioned even once that I recall. So here's a doozy of a question: What is going to happen to holding corps and sov transfers? And those renter corps that won't leave their own system unless the entire region is burning down around them? Does anyone think they will willingly defend their sov? In this new system, even if 1000 titans came to defend, not one of them will be able to rep up the renter alliance's structures. The options are to shoot the attackers or annex the sov structure. I'm intensely curious to see how landlord alliances change their rental schemes to adapt to this new system.
pay us or we'll take your sov
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:04:52 -
[359] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.
20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang What's the locking range on one of those again? And what's to stop you just parking an atron at 0 and running a defensive link. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
882
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:05:29 -
[360] - Quote
Maya Cinderfort wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:Here's a twist: For the Attackers, some of the command nodes are duds. The defender knows which nodes are the effective ones. then the attacker knows which ones by waiting a bit & seeing where defenders go
And the defenders get to false flag bad nodes. :)
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:05:35 -
[361] - Quote
Generally - interesting gameplay to be had! Nice work CCP, now you just need to tweak this a bit...
Pros: * Small gangs can take sov and will harass bigger entities empty sov-space (there is a LOT of totally empty sov-systems today!). Excellent! Using WHs to harass enemy sov will be done a lot! * Freeport station for 48h - awsome id+¬a! * Constellation-wide conflict - awsome! Making tactical use of the "geography" of constellations will be a key in caoturing sov - nice! * Non-scaling of entosis-modules - nice! A fleet of 1 or 1000 doesn't matter. Power to the solo/small-gangs!
Cons: * Small gangs will never be able to hold on to sov once they have taken it, but I guess that was never the thought with this anyway?! * This was supposed to be simpler than the current sov-grind?! My eyes bleed after all this text! ;-) * The "Primetime"-concept is a bit awkward - there is a big risk that certain Tz:s will never be part of any fun sov-harassment or serious sov-warfare. Also a "primetime" in a week-day is usually not the "primetime" in week-ends. Fights will always be within the Tz:s and that is a bit boring really. So rethink pls!
Questions: * Once a structure/station has a new owner; what will the default prime-time be set to? Will changing this default prime-time the first time always induce the 96h transition period where the structure has 2 vulnerability-periods during this transition? I think this might need a bit of rethinking too... * What determins the owning corp of a captured structure? Will it default to the executor corp of the alliance no matter what, or will it be the corp that had the "killing-entosis-cycle" or how will that work?
And the final most important question: * What the h*ll shall I use my Super Carrier for now?! Can't shoot POSes, no need to grind structures because "entosis", power-projection-nerfs effectively killed hotdropping capitals....Unsubbing is the best option, or does CCP plan to add some new "role" instead of the role of "main structure grinder"? DPS is not king anymore...(death to all supers - I know, I know! Just didn't expect CCP to kill them in this way!)
CEO Svea Rike
|
Maya Cinderfort
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:05:41 -
[362] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Total Newbie wrote:Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points. NPC null, interceptors, cyno jumps behind defensive walls, move ops outside of the Sov holders primetime when defences are weaker... that's just off the top of my head without any great experience in Nullsec logistics.
jep because you don't die jumping to a closed station or just into random points of space. try getting an IHUB into the interceptor.
i know high-null holes, but yeah those aren't reliable at all |
Ortus Maleficus
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:05:59 -
[363] - Quote
At first I thought the 4 hour window thing was janky and a terrible idea.
But then I realized, as a former hardcore but now casual eve player, it really opens up the possibility of me getting more into 0.0 sov warfare, which I like.
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
296
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:06:35 -
[364] - Quote
Carriers lose one of their unique roles. "O well, at least we can repair structures with them, their other 'being good at role'.
CCP removes structure HP.
Also; LOL supers
So if I'm correct, CCP wants players to invest tons of money getting a market and industry off the ground in their home systems in nullsec. While they just made them wayyy easier to capture. All that is needed is for the other big entity to show up and mess with the timers while they're contested by some YOLO wh group. Not do they have to do that twice, just one slip-up is enough for Third Party Hellcamps to take place.
:CCP:
Baddest poster ever
|
Tibo Steel
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:07:19 -
[365] - Quote
You say in you Dev Blog:
Quote:Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.
And then you add the Random anomalies spawn mechanic: Let's say a random "A" alliance forms up to defend their space with 50 pilots. They spot 2 anomalies spawned in 2 systems 3 jumps apart. The attacker, let's say "The Bees" alliance forms up 4 250 man fleets for the timer with the help of their friends(i.e. read it as pets). What chances the small 50 man strong fleet has to finish an anomaly until the attacking Bees finish the rest of them? |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
826
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:07:27 -
[366] - Quote
Aight, here's a more serious post. I like the "command node" system. Spreading the actual fighting to the constelation vs several grids in the same system spreads out lag, adds a little more strategy, gives jump bridges and titans a little more use for defenders, its okay. "One sov structure per system", again, good idea. Cuts down on station spam, makes pve riskier, less structures, good idea. "Freeport mode" also a good idea, gives people a reasonable timeframe to organize actual move ops vs. installing a JC and waiting a month.
Now here's the bad ****. Timed "vulnerability". Bullshit. Everything should be vulnerable to people ******* with it all the time. Any TZ should be able to roam around reinforcing **** whenever they want. Now the actual reinforcement timers themselves should obviously stay, the defender gets to pick when they want to start the fight, but not when somebody wants to be a **** and turn off all your station stuff and/or reo a region.
Next up, the whole entosis module ****. This is just going to promote putting as many warm bodies into stabbed interceptors as possible and blitzing command nodes. Thats no fun. The entosis module needs to promote actual fleet fighting rather than 9k/s games of tag. A good compromise might be rendering an entosis ship completely immobile like a siege/triage which would promote taking and holding grid BEFORE you start flipping a command node.
Thirdly, Why should we attack/defend anything? Currently, the major reason to hold nullsec space is to rent it out. Because to be perfectly honest, when compared to other areas of EVE, null income is pretty goddamn ****. With our massive renter empire, N3 is able to squeeze out actual income for our pvp pilots and alliance operations, but without the scale of a rental empire, there's just no point in holding any sov at all. Most of the people who actually do "sov null" would just stop caring about sov at all, we're gonna end up staking out areas of NPC space to live in and pretty much making our own sov system. Hell, a good chunk of null already has alt in highsec farming incursions for our personal incomes. So whats the solution? BUFF NULL PVE. Give me a reason to want to carebear in nullsec. Because otherwise, farming incursions in highsec and running roams out of NPC null is a better way to live than earning shittastic nullbear income and playing interceptor tag ever day.
I want to be your representative for CSMX!
Please EVEmail me with any quesitons, comments or concerns you have about myself or EVE.
|
Professor Headmash
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:07:28 -
[367] - Quote
Hendrink Collie wrote:Professor Headmash wrote:So if I'm part of an alliance that holds Sov, instead of doing different things every time I log in to keep me intrested and logging into the game.....I'm going to be constantly flying around chasing captor gangs griefing our sov?
Seems legit. No offense, but if you can't quickly deal with a ceptor gang using a module on your sov structures, you shouldn't even bother holding sov.
Ha! Yeah I knda get your point! I'm thinking more along the ease of it though....yeah structure grinding is a ball ache no one likes.....however making it that all you need to do to start off the process is cycle a mod and target it for like 40 minutes is knda crazy. Taking sov off someone is something that should involve time, effort, planning and a real thought process....not just a module. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
882
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:07:40 -
[368] - Quote
Freeport Mode - Station ECM enforces a no DPS zone within 300Km
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3174
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:07:59 -
[369] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.
20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, web, friends. Have fun exploding.
Also, remember I can stop your efforts by hitting the structure with my own Entosis link. Ill put it in one cruiser in my gang. Going to come over with your claw and fight them off?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
capn Hicks
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:08:23 -
[370] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon. Tell us exactly how it's any different now? Provibloc still exists now.
its there for content/bad space.... not because they fought off goons and N3 |
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1436
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:08:24 -
[371] - Quote
Sounds great so far.
The Tears Must Flow
|
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:10:17 -
[372] - Quote
Hendrink Collie wrote:Professor Headmash wrote:So if I'm part of an alliance that holds Sov, instead of doing different things every time I log in to keep me intrested and logging into the game.....I'm going to be constantly flying around chasing captor gangs griefing our sov?
Seems legit. No offense, but if you can't quickly deal with a ceptor gang using a module on your sov structures, you shouldn't even bother holding sov. Show me how to tackle less than 2 second aligning interceptors that dont want to be caught. |
Rita Zechs
Large Rodent Hunters
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:10:28 -
[373] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:This primetime ****. The **** are the Australians going to do?
Making an aussie alliance obviously.
|
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:10:31 -
[374] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Total Newbie wrote:Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points. outside of the Sov holders primetime
no flipping then...
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
59
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:10:34 -
[375] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:Elona Solette wrote:Pie Napple wrote:I see a problem with with the primetime thing as there is no actual way to make real coalitions in game.
For alliances with mixed timezones, like brave collective, there is no way of splitting up into timezones and splitting up the sovereignty. If the split would happen, nothing in the game ties the coalition together. It would not be one brave any more, it would be multiple. It would all have to be handled by standings. No common chat channels (has to be created and managed manually).
I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions. This is explicitly designed to break up coalitions not encourage them. But won't break them up at all..... Now, we'll use GoonWaffe..... GW becomes basically a centralized Bank/repository and station flipping force.... Current blues lock down whatever system they want to control.... still coalition friendly...
Yes, having friends in timezones outside your prime is a benefit, and if they happen to be in an Alliance outside yours that is friendly to you, still a benefit. They just cannot do things for you like defensively hack if no one from your alliance is there. |
Globby
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:10:44 -
[376] - Quote
i'm glad of the changes |
Maya Cinderfort
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:11:02 -
[377] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:One sov structure per system
you mean one of each type. so still 3
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2808
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:11:06 -
[378] - Quote
xartin wrote:gment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.
Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.
UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.
How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Heptameron
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:12:03 -
[379] - Quote
So you took away hot drops You took away fast moving cap warfare You took away large supercap fights You gave me space aids
and now you effectively taken away offensive deployment away from my 'home'....
Oh but you have given the griefer in a kestrel a great tool to get their s**ts and giggles....
Nice CCP nice..... *slow clap* |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
59
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:12:44 -
[380] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:xartin wrote:gment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.
Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.
UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.
How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly.
BECAUSE OMG IT'S DIFFERENT AND HARD AND CCP ARE KILLING MY PLAYSTYLE AND MAKING SOV WORTHLESS!!!!! |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2050
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:12:45 -
[381] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.
20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang good luck targeting the structure |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
656
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:13:11 -
[382] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Sooooooo the only reason not to use the vastly superior T2 entosis link is price. I think you need to make it more expensive than 80M, that's still cheap for what it does, especially considering the benefits of the range.
I was thinking that, but it doesn't capture any faster, and all it takes is one guy with a T1 variant to stall any progress. The range doesn't really help the person capture the node, just lets them stay alive. If you're orbiting at 240km and actually want to CAPTURE the node, you'll need to kill the person who is preventing you from capturing it.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2050
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:13:46 -
[383] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:xartin wrote:gment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.
Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.
UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.
How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly. stront timers can differ, this primetime thing cannot. Some towers and structures may come out at different times than others for whatever purpose. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3195
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:13:46 -
[384] - Quote
the new system has many parallels to the FW system. Looks interesting for sure.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
59
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:13:50 -
[385] - Quote
Heptameron wrote: and now you effectively taken away offensive deployment away from my 'home'....
Well if there isn't anyone to fight near your home maybe you need less blues |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:13:52 -
[386] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Total Newbie wrote:Since the proposed change is out, I would think that the meeting minutes of The current CSM and it's members who are supporting this be published as well. The NDA seems to be null and void now. what makes you say that
Transparency mate. Non-disclosure agreement should be null and void on the proposed changes, because CCP posted them here. CSM minutes as to who supported this should be published for all to see. |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
151
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:14:16 -
[387] - Quote
imtokenitnow wrote:About the primetime zone, why don't scale it on member count AND/OR number of TCU, IHUB, stations ? And make the ability to split the timer in two primetime (who can be close together) if > 6h (for exemple) ?
It should not be too hard to find a function doing that.
Like : 3H Small number of alliance & systems : Phoebe Freeport Republic 5H Medium-Large number of alliance & systems : Curatores Veritatis Alliance or Northern Coalition. 2*4H Huge number of alliance & systems : Northern Associate or Goonswarm Federation.
It resolve some of the problems of the unique primetime & also the bigger you are, the harder it is to protect your space.
What do you think about that ?
While I like the idea it would probably do nothing since the vulnerable state will end about 15 minutes after it started just by repping the stuff back up via the E-link thingy.
The 4h timeframe pretty much splits an alliance into 4h-a-day-sovfleetplayers and 19,5h-a-day farmers. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
913
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:14:21 -
[388] - Quote
Oh, CCP, are you going to change your node balancing also? As far as Iremember, you are throwing systems on a server based on activity and if you have a whole quiet constellation, it has a high chance of ending on the same node either partly or fully, creating a situation where a single node has to handle the thousands of players even if they span multiple systems?
Easy way to demostrate: get 3000 pilots travelliing through lowsec in 2 clumps, you will have 3-9 systems around the route in TiDi even if no pilots have been in them for 20 minutes. |
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:14:34 -
[389] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:Aight, here's a more serious post. I like the "command node" system. Spreading the actual fighting to the constelation vs several grids in the same system spreads out lag, adds a little more strategy, gives jump bridges and titans a little more use for defenders, its okay. "One sov structure per system", again, good idea. Cuts down on station spam, makes pve riskier, less structures, good idea. "Freeport mode" also a good idea, gives people a reasonable timeframe to organize actual move ops vs. installing a JC and waiting a month.
Now here's the bad ****. Timed "vulnerability". Bullshit. Everything should be vulnerable to people ******* with it all the time. Any TZ should be able to roam around reinforcing **** whenever they want. Now the actual reinforcement timers themselves should obviously stay, the defender gets to pick when they want to start the fight, but not when somebody wants to be a **** and turn off all your station stuff and/or reo a region.
Next up, the whole entosis module ****. This is just going to promote putting as many warm bodies into stabbed interceptors as possible and blitzing command nodes. Thats no fun. The entosis module needs to promote actual fleet fighting rather than 9k/s games of tag. A good compromise might be rendering an entosis ship completely immobile like a siege/triage which would promote taking and holding grid BEFORE you start flipping a command node.
Thirdly, Why should we attack/defend anything? Currently, the major reason to hold nullsec space is to rent it out. Because to be perfectly honest, when compared to other areas of EVE, null income is pretty goddamn ****. With our massive renter empire, N3 is able to squeeze out actual income for our pvp pilots and alliance operations, but without the scale of a rental empire, there's just no point in holding any sov at all. Most of the people who actually do "sov null" would just stop caring about sov at all, we're gonna end up staking out areas of NPC space to live in and pretty much making our own sov system. Hell, a good chunk of null already has alt in highsec farming incursions for our personal incomes. So whats the solution? BUFF NULL PVE. Give me a reason to want to carebear in nullsec. Because otherwise, farming incursions in highsec and running roams out of NPC null is a better way to live than earning shittastic nullbear income and playing interceptor tag ever day.
Whats your opinion about Supercapitals use due to this changes? |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
79
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:14:59 -
[390] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vigilanta wrote:also, did it not occur to you that sov war is now basically a giant frigate fleet, with little or no reason to use anything larger, due to guns playing no part in it, just mobility? You have to sit around on the Command thingy for up to 40 minutes. Any cruiser fleet would shread a frigate fleet in 10-40 minutes. Thus it is not frigates online.
if they sit on one node, you sit on the other 9, remember there are multiple nodes spawned at the same time |
|
jurgen b
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:15:23 -
[391] - Quote
So nul sec groups roaming in FW systems, fighting FW members without gaining LP just for kills because they dont find that in nul sec, ok all good non complains, even tho they also dont gain LP by it. Nul sec groups, ganking in high sec and war dec in high sec because again they are bored in nul sec so they start to fight people who dont want to be in war in high sec. So maybe CCP tought, lets all combine everything from FW low and war decs and ganks in high all into 1 combined mechanic into nul sec because that is what people in nul sec search for, in LOW and high sec, so lets give them that. Is that plausible? If that was what people ware searching for in low and high sec, why do they complain when possible more action will happen. because that is what the nul sec peeps accoarding the forums wanted all along. Eve mercs can play a hugh part in this as well as attacker. you can rent a merc millitary force as attacker.
And also CCP stated it is open for feedback and tweaks will happen in the mechanics that is why they released the dev blog. so constructive feedback can happen and so everything can be tweaked and adjusted and good ideas go in and bad out again |
Apokolypse
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:15:47 -
[392] - Quote
this is absolutely horrid. Noones doing FW so lets make sov resemble it so someone actually does it? Everyone in CSM who recommended this travesty of a system should be voted out in the coming elections. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
913
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:15:57 -
[393] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:X Gallentius wrote:xartin wrote:gment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.
Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.
UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.
How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly. BECAUSE OMG IT'S DIFFERENT AND HARD AND CCP ARE KILLING MY PLAYSTYLE AND MAKING SOV WORTHLESS!!!!!
No, sov is largerly worthless already, only thing the vast majority of buffer zones allow you to do is get an early warning that a Random Legion is knocking on your door.
Then again, I'm sure Test could live in a region full of -0.05's just because it's sov. |
Nyan Lafisques
Fairly Ganked
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:16:24 -
[394] - Quote
Heptameron wrote:So you took away hot drops You took away fast moving cap warfare You took away large supercap fights You gave me space aids
and now you effectively taken away offensive deployment away from my 'home'....
Oh but you have given the griefer in a kestrel a great tool to get their s**ts and giggles....
Nice CCP nice..... *slow clap*
If all your neighbors weren't blue you wouldn't need to "deploy away from your home". |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2809
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:16:31 -
[395] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:Quote:How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly.
BECAUSE OMG IT'S DIFFERENT AND HARD AND CCP ARE KILLING MY PLAYSTYLE AND MAKING SOV WORTHLESS!!!!! It was an honest question. Players could come back with "Stront timers can be gamed - which leads to a chance of off-TZ defense", or "I'd be OK with this if the timers could be Constellation Based instead of universally applied to the entire alliance. Now my AUTZ buds in the alliance could have something to do."
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Olya Tsarev
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:17:02 -
[396] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:Rowells wrote:Total Newbie wrote:Since the proposed change is out, I would think that the meeting minutes of The current CSM and it's members who are supporting this be published as well. The NDA seems to be null and void now. what makes you say that Transparency mate. Non-disclosure agreement should be null and void on the proposed changes, because CCP posted them here. CSM minutes as to who supported this should be published for all to see.
Well as I said earlier, I have proof Sion endorsed this change with the full details prior to the announcement today over on Goonfleet.com
Seems he is very supportive of these changes and is perfectly content with the breaking of his NDA since, as you said, it was released by CCP eventually. |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:17:03 -
[397] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:Generally - interesting gameplay to be had! Nice work CCP, now you just need to tweak this a bit...
Pros: * Small gangs can take sov and will harass bigger entities empty sov-space (there is a LOT of totally empty sov-systems today!). Excellent! Using WHs to harass enemy sov will be done a lot! * Freeport station for 48h - awsome id+¬a! * Constellation-wide conflict - awsome! Making tactical use of the "geography" of constellations will be a key in caoturing sov - nice! * Non-scaling of entosis-modules - nice! A fleet of 1 or 1000 doesn't matter. Power to the solo/small-gangs!
Cons: * Small gangs will never be able to hold on to sov once they have taken it, but I guess that was never the thought with this anyway?! * This was supposed to be simpler than the current sov-grind?! My eyes bleed after all this text! ;-) * The "Primetime"-concept is a bit awkward - there is a big risk that certain Tz:s will never be part of any fun sov-harassment or serious sov-warfare. Also a "primetime" in a week-day is usually not the "primetime" in week-ends. Fights will always be within the Tz:s and that is a bit boring really. So rethink pls!
Questions: * Once a structure/station has a new owner; what will the default prime-time be set to? Will changing this default prime-time the first time always induce the 96h transition period where the structure has 2 vulnerability-periods during this transition? I think this might need a bit of rethinking too... * What determins the owning corp of a captured structure? Will it default to the executor corp of the alliance no matter what, or will it be the corp that had the "killing-entosis-cycle" or how will that work?
And the final most important question: * What the h*ll shall I use my Super Carrier for now?! Can't shoot POSes, no need to grind structures because "entosis", power-projection-nerfs effectively killed hotdropping capitals....Unsubbing is the best option, or does CCP plan to add some new "role" instead of the role of "main structure grinder"? DPS is not king anymore...(death to all supers - I know, I know! Just didn't expect CCP to kill them in this way!)
To add onto your post.... how does one transfer a station? The transferee uses his link and waits 96 hours?
|
Cassandra Masami
Silnare Care Factor
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:17:42 -
[398] - Quote
I can foresee more I-Hubs and TCUs getting destroyed from these changes. Will some of the larger sov structures that require T1 freighters (like I-Hubs) to move around be reduced in size or even expense? |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
267
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:18:54 -
[399] - Quote
Apokolypse wrote:this is absolutely horrid. Noones doing FW so lets make sov resemble it so someone actually does it? Everyone in CSM who recommended this travesty of a system should be voted out in the coming elections.
ATM, more people do FW than do sov structure grinds (some > none). Large coalition leaders are on record as stating that they won't be responsible for starting ANY war that could devolve into the horrible structure mechanic grind. Honestly, practically ANY system would be better than what exists now. This is a case where movement in any direction is better than standing still for CCP. Even if they get it completely wrong the first time around, it will shake things up and make other solutions more apparent. |
virm pasuul
Viziam Amarr Empire
214
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:20:14 -
[400] - Quote
If I was a dev I wouldn't ever read any post feedback thread until 48 hours after the dev blog. Better still lock it for 48 hours for the information to sink into people's skulls and percolate a little before posting. Then open the threads. So much throwing of toys out of prams. The price of toys in Jita is going through the roof.
If you are upset you should realise a few things:
It's not possible for one solution to make everyone happy. Some sort of best for everyone compromise is necessary.
Stagnation is bad for the game. Just because a crumb from top table drops in your lap occasionally does not means things should not change. Think of the wider picture of the game a a whole.
If **** ain't blowing up regularly what's the point in being rich? It becomes meaningless.
The devs laid out clear goals in the post. If you think they missed those goals, or can think of a better way to reach those goals then maybe explain your idea and reasoning. |
|
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad The Afterlife.
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:20:55 -
[401] - Quote
Man, chaos is coming.
What are gonna do with sov upgrades? They grow for like month, and won'be viable in current state when a system can switch owners like 3 times a week |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
62
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:21:21 -
[402] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:X Gallentius wrote:xartin wrote:gment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.
Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.
UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.
How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly. BECAUSE OMG IT'S DIFFERENT AND HARD AND CCP ARE KILLING MY PLAYSTYLE AND MAKING SOV WORTHLESS!!!!! No, sov is largerly worthless already, only thing the vast majority of buffer zones allow you to do is get an early warning that a Random Legion is knocking on your door. Then again, I'm sure Test could live in a region full of -0.05's just because it's sov.
TEST can stand on it's own without aid from 15,000 other people too, collapsing 2 alliances into iself, and being under the thumb of Mittani too. Now if we are done measuring e-peen, sov isn't worthless. The people that own the majority of it have turtled up and decided that it's in their best interest to be friends and make money off of it without actually using it themselves. This is nerfing that, and will hopefully bring about a more active and dynamic sov ecosystem where gudfites are easily found and people deploying across the map for fights because they allied with everyone next door is a thing of the past. |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
368
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:21:51 -
[403] - Quote
To me the mechanics themselves aren't as the important as the single fact that you guys are finally giving the stagnated nullsec the shake it needs to wake up.
I commend CCP for making some truly radical changes, though waiting as long as you have with the current system was definitely a mistake in my opinion.
Not even mad that my 150bn of supercapitals are essentially left without a practical use from my initial understanding of the system. To all those complaining, yes some things aren't going to be as easymode as they were. However, please realize that the current state of sov is not healthy whatsoever, and that for the good of the game something needed to be done. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2810
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:21:59 -
[404] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Even if they get it completely wrong the first time around, it will shake things up and ..... lead to more pew until they iterate on it.
Change is good. Proven to lead to more pew until ruthless optimization takes hold.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
656
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:24:11 -
[405] - Quote
virm pasuul wrote:Lots of tears in this thread. You should consider buying a crying permit before James sets his sights on 0.0.
The insults to the devs are a bit off. Try being more constructive and using more reasoning.
A level headed post?! Not in my EVE Online!
Seriously though, this thread is General Discussion bad.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
267
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:26:01 -
[406] - Quote
Cassandra Masami wrote:I can foresee more I-Hubs and TCUs getting destroyed from these changes. Will some of the larger sov structures that require T1 freighters (like I-Hubs) to move around be reduced in size or even expense?
Why make it cheaper or easier to move expensive conflict drivers? Large alliances should still have the ability to do things small alliances cannot. In particular, things like the IHUB should allow large alliances to increase the player density their systems can support by virtue of the fact that placing and defending IHUBs in a station system will certainly take far more people and effort than dropping a TCU in a backwater constellation. It should remain a difficult and risky thing to do because an alliance willing and able to do this SHOULD get some benefit from doing so.
The point is that small alliances can hold sov without requiring an ihub. You can just drop a TCU and some POS's and have your little corner of space. The purpose is NOT to homogenize sov to the point that small alliance sov is just as powerful or meaningful as large alliance sov. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:26:05 -
[407] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:virm pasuul wrote:Lots of tears in this thread. You should consider buying a crying permit before James sets his sights on 0.0.
The insults to the devs are a bit off. Try being more constructive and using more reasoning. A level headed post?! Not in my EVE Online! Seriously though, this thread is General Discussion bad.
and the major em pires are yet to get involved!
When PL and goons decide which side of the line they sit on, thats when eve goes full retardo |
Tyr Dolorem
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:27:03 -
[408] - Quote
RIP any timezone that isn't US.... who thought that was a good idea, I wan't them to explain it to me. |
Olya Tsarev
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:28:15 -
[409] - Quote
Tyr Dolorem wrote:RIP any timezone that isn't US.... who thought that was a good idea, I wan't them to explain it to me.
Canadian Jesus did. Do you dare question the word of Christ our Lord? |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
826
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:28:30 -
[410] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:Aiwha wrote:Aight, here's a more serious post. I like the "command node" system. Spreading the actual fighting to the constelation vs several grids in the same system spreads out lag, adds a little more strategy, gives jump bridges and titans a little more use for defenders, its okay. "One sov structure per system", again, good idea. Cuts down on station spam, makes pve riskier, less structures, good idea. "Freeport mode" also a good idea, gives people a reasonable timeframe to organize actual move ops vs. installing a JC and waiting a month.
Now here's the bad ****. Timed "vulnerability". Bullshit. Everything should be vulnerable to people ******* with it all the time. Any TZ should be able to roam around reinforcing **** whenever they want. Now the actual reinforcement timers themselves should obviously stay, the defender gets to pick when they want to start the fight, but not when somebody wants to be a **** and turn off all your station stuff and/or reo a region.
Next up, the whole entosis module ****. This is just going to promote putting as many warm bodies into stabbed interceptors as possible and blitzing command nodes. Thats no fun. The entosis module needs to promote actual fleet fighting rather than 9k/s games of tag. A good compromise might be rendering an entosis ship completely immobile like a siege/triage which would promote taking and holding grid BEFORE you start flipping a command node.
Thirdly, Why should we attack/defend anything? Currently, the major reason to hold nullsec space is to rent it out. Because to be perfectly honest, when compared to other areas of EVE, null income is pretty goddamn ****. With our massive renter empire, N3 is able to squeeze out actual income for our pvp pilots and alliance operations, but without the scale of a rental empire, there's just no point in holding any sov at all. Most of the people who actually do "sov null" would just stop caring about sov at all, we're gonna end up staking out areas of NPC space to live in and pretty much making our own sov system. Hell, a good chunk of null already has alt in highsec farming incursions for our personal incomes. So whats the solution? BUFF NULL PVE. Give me a reason to want to carebear in nullsec. Because otherwise, farming incursions in highsec and running roams out of NPC null is a better way to live than earning shittastic nullbear income and playing interceptor tag ever day. Whats your opinion about Supercapitals use due to this changes?
Well, Titans are getting a use, as I mentioned, because mobile jump bridge? Hell yes. I'd say give them a bit more of a reduction on jump fatigue for bridged pilots but that's a number balancing thing. Supercarriers? They're in a sort of semi-****** space right now. As it stands, in the new system, supers get used to kill capitals and other supers. Now in the grand scheme of things, that could be more than enough, but dreads/carriers are also in this semi-****** space with supers in that they don't have a real use outside of a POS timer.
I see two options, either we have another massive rebuild of supers (remember when they were motherships?) to fill an entirely new role, or CCP needs to give capital warfare a BIG shot in the arm. Personally, I'm for buffing and expanding capital roles.
I want to be your representative for CSMX!
Please EVEmail me with any quesitons, comments or concerns you have about myself or EVE.
|
|
Tyr Dolorem
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:30:13 -
[411] - Quote
Olya Tsarev wrote:Tyr Dolorem wrote:RIP any timezone that isn't US.... who thought that was a good idea, I wan't them to explain it to me. Canadian Jesus did. Do you dare question the word of Christ our Lord?
Are those the churches where they serve mapel syrup instead of wine?
I like those churches.
Go Canadian Jesus! |
Brakoo
Shiva Nulli Secunda
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:30:57 -
[412] - Quote
If we are going to have the military and industry indexes matter for the "occupancy" bonus I would like to see the way they are measured overhauled.
The Industry Index needs to include PI, Industry jobs run, and maybe even moon mining/reactions done in those systems to truly reflect usage.
The Military Index on that same note should include some kind of pilots in space metric, maybe Isk value of PVP ship kills or something along those lines.
In their current state the occupancy bonuses will just encourage compulsory PVE ops to increase defense levels. |
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
941
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:31:00 -
[413] - Quote
Olya Tsarev wrote:Total Newbie wrote:Rowells wrote:Total Newbie wrote:Since the proposed change is out, I would think that the meeting minutes of The current CSM and it's members who are supporting this be published as well. The NDA seems to be null and void now. what makes you say that Transparency mate. Non-disclosure agreement should be null and void on the proposed changes, because CCP posted them here. CSM minutes as to who supported this should be published for all to see. Well as I said earlier, I have proof Sion endorsed this change with the full details prior to the announcement today over on Goonfleet.com Seems he is very supportive of these changes and is perfectly content with the breaking of his NDA since, as you said, it was released by CCP eventually.
Sounds like you should report this to security and provide proof instead of being a big baby *****. |
Antillie Sa'Kan
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
932
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:31:04 -
[414] - Quote
Data and relic sites should contribute to the industry index if they are run by a member of the alliance that owns the system. This allows explorers to contribute to the system and gives a reason to interdict and defend said sites. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1354
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:31:23 -
[415] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.
20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang I would like to see this fit, especially one that is A) cap stable and 2) can lock that far.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Iski Zuki DaSen
Icarus Academy
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:32:01 -
[416] - Quote
wtb iHubs 10m3 wtb upgrades 1m3 wtb tcu 5m3 at the price of 1 mil each also wtb upgrades that actually upgrade a crappy pve wise system to a system that actully can be used
also bb AU TZ peeps was nice playing with you
and gl taking sov from the Russians |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2715
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:32:27 -
[417] - Quote
I love every one of those 7000+ words.
Ram it home.
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
255
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:32:32 -
[418] - 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.
Since it comes up so often, I will address it. Yes, the change from grinding fleets to single "hacking" ships is HUGE. Yes, it has a great potential for trolling. But call it rather "knocking at the door and asking for a fight".
Many people have complained about the fixed 4-hour-window. I believe this fixed window (and please no larger than 4 hours) is a CRUCIAL and MANDATORY part of the whole plan.
CCP basically removes the "fleet size floor" for sov holders. To avoid the "500 Interceptors conquering nullsec in 1 day" scenario, you need some other limitation. This will be the small time window.
If your alliance wants to hold sov, you must be able to keep your space clean of enemies for 4 hours per day. Completely clean. If you fail to remove one ship or to respond to a small gang, you get timers. Those 4 hours are long for the defender and it's absolutely fair that the defender gets to choose them.
It's also ok if they are fixed, because I know the similar POCO mechanism quite well. If you need to defend a lot of POCOs and basically you are not willing, you will set the timers randomly to wear down the enemy without fighting yourself. The new system wants to prevent this, which is good.
However, I do see the problem. On the one hand, a small defending group (which should be viable in nullsec by design) cannot defend anything but a small time window in their own prime time. Period. No small window selectable by defender -> no small groups holding sov.
But it also works the other way round. If I am in a small group with only one prime time zone, I can hardly attack anything in a different timezone. This IS an issue.
Suggestion: FORCE alliances to choose one different time window for each constellation where they hold sov. -I am a small group, 1 timezone: I can hold sov in one constellation, people will have to fight in my prime time. -I want to be bigger and hold multiple constellations: I need to be able to defend multiple 4-hour-windows in different timezones -if I want to attack CFC or N3 with a small group, I will always find a constellation where they are vulnerable in my timezone. The other way round does not work. They have to fight me where I am strongest. -if 2 large entities battle each other, there will be all sorts of shenanigans. They will have to carefully choose which constellations get vulnerable in which timezone, but generally they will be vulnerable somewhere 24/7.
I really like the new approach. Sounds promising. I see many people in this thread though who fail to see the implications, because they are thinking in the old ways. |
MajorScrewup
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:33:23 -
[419] - Quote
Example...
'Unknown Corporation A' all start playing the game, learn how to fly ships together etc, recruit people from the same timezone that they play in (07:00 to 11:00 EvE Time) and generally all get along and become the best PvP's in the game.
Their corporation slowly builds to around 50 and decide that while fighting wars and PvPing in lo-sec is nice. They would like to expand and add some sov in nul-sec so that they can experience all the things that EvE offers.
They look around at all the regions nearest to them and see that the sov owners all play at a different time and have set their prime time for a time that none of them could log in for. They look further afield and then across the entire map and realize that they can never experience an attempt to gain sov as no-one has set a prime-time when this group of players can log in.
EvE Online: Experience Everything (except those currently in timezones that will never get to play or own sov) |
Candente
Navy Veteran Club
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:33:40 -
[420] - Quote
This sounds and should actually be much better than structure grinds... but how it actually would turn out needs can only be judged after patch deployment.
I also think making Entosis module initially only for BS is a good start... the battleships need some love, and this is the perfect chance to reduce trolling the system with throwaway ships. |
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:34:04 -
[421] - Quote
I love these changes. I think this will entice smaller high and low sec corps to move to null and bear it up so we have more targets to kill.
Also makes me interested in maybe putting an alt in an alliance doing sov warfare.
Prime time defense is as it should be. If you are the attacker and you are in a different time zone then it's on you to gather your forces when they are vulnerable. The defensive team should always have strategic advantages.
+1 CCP |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
457
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:34:16 -
[422] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote: TEST can stand on it's own without aid from 15,000 other people too,
i suppose that just because it's never happened before is no guarantee it can never happen in the future |
Olya Tsarev
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:34:19 -
[423] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:Sounds like you should report this to security and provide proof instead of being a big baby *****.
Well actually here's the thing, I don't need to provide proof whatsoever. I can make these claims all I want. #FreedomOfSpeechYo
I also like how you had to throw in a really petty insult to drive across the fact I struck a nerve. Thanks Vystypoo <4 |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1436
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:35:28 -
[424] - Quote
Nullbear tears. Good.
The Tears Must Flow
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
460
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:35:31 -
[425] - Quote
Olya Tsarev wrote:Aryndel Vyst wrote:Sounds like you should report this to security and provide proof instead of being a big baby *****. Well actually here's the thing, I don't need to provide proof whatsoever. I can make these claims all I want. #FreedomOfSpeechYo I also like how you had to throw in a really petty insult to drive across the fact I struck a nerve. Thanks Vystypoo <4 "every time people mock me for faceplanting they're secretly validating they care about me :3:" |
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:35:42 -
[426] - Quote
Olya Tsarev wrote:Aryndel Vyst wrote:Sounds like you should report this to security and provide proof instead of being a big baby *****. Well actually here's the thing, I don't need to provide proof whatsoever. I can make these claims all I want. #FreedomOfSpeechYo haha what
|
Drone Plague
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:36:18 -
[427] - Quote
- So if your not active in your alliance's prime time you can say goodbye to having anything to do.
- Don't plan on having any station services available out of your prime-time also because they can be turned off at any time by any group that comes around.
- Industrial Indices has no link to any industrial activity except mining. So an enemy just needs to place a cloaked ships in your system and that's goodbye to your industrial indices bonus as no mining will occur. So pretty much the same as it is now. Nullsec mining is a joke due to the ore anomalies being instantly warpable and only having 1 or 2 per system.
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
884
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:36:24 -
[428] - Quote
Shouldn't Starbase deployments, or at least their active industry related arrays, impact the Industrial index? That's a huge component of production presence, probably far exceeding even mining.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate
376
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:36:51 -
[429] - Quote
After thinking about this some more, especially in regards to the timezone component, I would make the following suggestion.
-Completely remove alliances from the game. -Move all sov structures to the corporate level. -To make up for alliances, give corporations the ability to join other corporations just like an individual pilot (some technical limitations on the number of cascaded corporations) -Sov structures are always tied to the corp though, but the name displayed will always "go up the tree" to the highest level parent coropration. -Overview would replace "In my alliance" with "In an affiliated corporation"
Players are now free to define their own organizational structures. We currently have corporations, alliances, coalitions, and affiliated coalitions. We will now have corporations, a parent corp, a grandfather corp, etc. A corp could then leave its parent corp and takes it sov with them as their own entity. If they chose to join another corporation, they take their sov untouched with them.
Yes its crazy, but it might allow for smaller groups to form within an alliance to spread out ownership of space. It gives people the ability to still associate with a larger parent, grand-parent, great grand-parent, etc corporation (Brave, Goons, CFC, N3, NCdot, Nulli, Provi-bloc, or whatever players want) as an identity, but the keeps the logistical/organization tools available at the corp level open to form viable subgroups.
QCATS is recruiting:-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3896299
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2055
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:36:56 -
[430] - Quote
Olya Tsarev wrote:Aryndel Vyst wrote:Sounds like you should report this to security and provide proof instead of being a big baby *****. Well actually here's the thing, I don't need to provide proof whatsoever. I can make these claims all I want. #FreedomOfSpeechYo I also like how you had to throw in a really petty insult to drive across the fact I struck a nerve. Thanks Vystypoo <4 #IHaveZeroValidity
Free speech means people can gab their gob, doesnt mean what comes out means anything, or is worth the spent O2. |
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
6118
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:37:00 -
[431] - Quote
Looks like your system is getting flayed alive. Good going, CCP, you definitely know how to do it!
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Nyctef
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
101
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:37:32 -
[432] - Quote
I think there's a lot of good ideas here (yay FW in null)
My 2 cents - I think the TCU icon on the in-space UI should be the only one that gets displayed, or is bigger than the others. TCUs have little value now apart from indicating which alliance actually *owns* a system (I think is a big psychological factor) and this would help with that |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2055
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:38:09 -
[433] - Quote
could the timer be switched to be based on the corp that owns it? you can still have multiple TZs but then its can be determined by the smaller groups within the alliance what TZ needs to be covered. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
268
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:39:43 -
[434] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:I see two options, either we have another massive rebuild of supers (remember when they were motherships?) to fill an entirely new role, or CCP needs to give capital warfare a BIG shot in the arm. Personally, I'm for buffing and expanding capital roles.
You know, I'm at the point that I wish CCP would just accept that the type of people that are going to be most attracted to supers as a concept are the people that will be happy to use supers for PvE and nothing else. And CCP should stop fighting this and just enable it.
Nullsec PvE income should be switched from AFK carrier anomaly ratting to some form of (hopefully active rather than AFK) incursion/sleeper/escalation/L6 missions/whatever supercarrier-based PvE. The people that WANT to fly supercarriers are the ones looking for the purple loot, the raid gear, the biggest/baddest/bestest ship to blow up red crosses with. So fine, let's give it to them to do exactly that in nullsec. They can still be giant loot pinatas the rest of the time to attract/draw conflict.
Everyone who actually flies supercarriers now does so because they HAVE to for PvP/blob/MAD reasons. Pretty much every one of those pilots would actually rather be in a T3 or a HAC or something a lot more fun for regular PvP purposes.
|
Mudd3
13. Enigma Project
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:40:05 -
[435] - Quote
Whatever they end up with, however ****** it potentially can be, there is hardly any chance at all that it could end up any more repulsive than how sov null operates right now.
|
DaOpa
Static Corp
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:40:12 -
[436] - Quote
Suggestion:
Add in ways for Attackers to shift the "Prime Time" timer by PVP Kills, Structure Kills of SOV Holders and other stuff.
Unbound anchoring requirements for POS/Structures in Null Space, let them build anywhere but with limits of each other.
Change All POS structures and make them modular, allowing additions for players to create "sandcastles"
"POS Idea is to let players start with a base structure that supplies power, requires fuel, has link connectors to which you can add other stuctures too, some structures dont require link but need to be in certain range of base structure. " etc
Change Moon Goo Mining / make it like PI ...
Other things I would add is to make EVE:Legion & Valkyrie have valuable placement in the SOV Changes. Go with the idea of being able to Jump Clone Out from EVE, Into Legion or Valkyrie and back.
EVE Legion will have modes to destroy PI Operations / Moon Goo stuff since they are planetary. Valkyrie will have modes to protect the Legion Warbarges
Just my ideas :)
LP Stores DB - WH List / Systems - Live Streamer
|
Tyr Dolorem
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:41:14 -
[437] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Aiwha wrote:I see two options, either we have another massive rebuild of supers (remember when they were motherships?) to fill an entirely new role, or CCP needs to give capital warfare a BIG shot in the arm. Personally, I'm for buffing and expanding capital roles. You know, I'm at the point that I wish CCP would just accept that the type of people that are going to be most attracted to supers as a concept are the people that will be happy to use supers for PvE and nothing else. And CCP should stop fighting this and just enable it. Nullsec PvE income should be switched from AFK carrier anomaly ratting to some form of (hopefully active rather than AFK) incursion/sleeper/escalation/L6 missions/whatever supercarrier-based PvE. The people that WANT to fly supercarriers are the ones looking for the purple loot, the raid gear, the biggest/baddest/bestest ship to blow up red crosses with. So fine, let's give it to them to do exactly that in nullsec. They can still be giant loot pinatas the rest of the time to attract/draw conflict. Everyone who actually flies supercarriers now does so because they HAVE to for PvP/blob/MAD reasons. Pretty much every one of those pilots would actually rather be in a T3 or a HAC or something a lot more fun for regular PvP purposes.
I disagree with just about everything you said here.
I mean.... wut... |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
656
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:41:34 -
[438] - Quote
Yugo 60 wrote: Problem: Interceptors Having "uncatchable" fleets of interceptors troll reinforcing everything in the region (or two) during one evening every single time that some structure is out of RF just for the heck of it (and to make sov holders form up for def all the time) is not what I would call a good mechanics. CHANGE INTERCEPTORS to make them catchable or give them inability of RFing.
If, in the 10-40 minutes you have to respond to the RF'ing of your TCU, you can't manage to get one ******* there in a Caracal with RLMLs and one of these links to block the inty's hack and/or kill it, you live too far from that system and do not have the ability nor right to hold it.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1355
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:42:33 -
[439] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Shouldn't Starbase deployments, or at least their active industry related arrays, impact the Industrial index? That's a huge component of production presence, probably far exceeding even mining. I like this suggestion quite a lot. Allow manufacturing in both outposts and pos, and reactor arrays to affect industrial index.
e: research as well
You can use system cost indices to roughly measure the efficacy of manufacturing/research, and have active POS moongoo reactors ping the industrial index as well during their hourly simulation events.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
616
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:42:53 -
[440] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Nullbear tears. Good.
Would you like to ******* trade places?
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
|
virm pasuul
Viziam Amarr Empire
215
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:43:04 -
[441] - Quote
In all this fuss don't forget that destructible player built stargates are coming at some time. The fanfest is 2 weeks away, there may be stuff in there that ties in to these changes......... |
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
7938
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:43:12 -
[442] - Quote
All I wanted to see was destructible stations and gates, with battles for gate operation privilages.
Technical Support
|
Callic Veratar
661
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:43:27 -
[443] - Quote
I'm really confused. So, if the defensive window is not during your availability you have nothing to do and if it is during your availability you can't do anything else.
So... living in nullsec means you spend all your time defending sov and that's it? |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
884
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:43:31 -
[444] - Quote
Olya Tsarev wrote:Aryndel Vyst wrote:Sounds like you should report this to security and provide proof instead of being a big baby *****. Well actually here's the thing, I don't need to provide proof whatsoever. I can make these claims all I want. #FreedomOfSpeechYo I also like how you had to throw in a really petty insult to drive across the fact I struck a nerve. Thanks Vystypoo <4
Uh, no? Trolling will get your post deleted. It's put up or shut up.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
268
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:43:34 -
[445] - Quote
Helios Panala wrote:Alliances need to be able to set 'prime-time' on a per structure basis so that groups spread across multiple timezones can be given content, at the very least you can have your different TZs defending different borders.
Other than that looks good to me.
This is way too granular and confusing and doesn't really introduce ANY pressure for widely sprawled groups to consolidate. However, as someone else mentioned (and since the entire system is constellation-focused), being able to set prime-time per constellation might be a reasonable middle ground. It would let people congregate with their active TZ players in a smaller area while still giving a large alliance the ability to bring multiple/flexible groups together across multiple TZ's in neighboring constellations. |
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
366
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:43:44 -
[446] - Quote
Am I wrong to believe that the new system involves a lot less destruction? In the old system - apart from stations, sov structures were being shot at and destroyed, which provided an engine for the eve economy. In the new system, basically you flash a light at a sov structure and it flips back and forth in a glorified game of tag, no destruction required. As a result, have we just lost a significant driver of the eve economy?
I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
|
Anton Menges Saddat
Minion Revolution SpaceMonkey's Alliance
75
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:44:25 -
[447] - Quote
I'm very much NOT feeling the primetime concept. It is idiotic and will restrict 'meaningful' battles to just one TZ and I cannot support that. I also say meaningful with quotations because I see no indication of actual benefits for taking/holding sov. Whye ven bother?
I am also envisioning troll fleets of slippery entosis interceptors. Interceptors are already annoying enough with their bubble immunity, this is just going to make it even worse.
I also don't appreciate the way capitals and especially supercapitals keep getting nerfed. At this point I'm having difficulty seeing usage for supers at all because they can't assign fighters, will not be put on-grid to fight subs due to atrocious lock-times and gimped offensive abilities (only 1 wing of fighters, no regular drones) and dreads are the more sensible option for killing other capitals. |
Heptameron
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:45:13 -
[448] - Quote
Nyan Lafisques wrote:Heptameron wrote:So you took away hot drops You took away fast moving cap warfare You took away large supercap fights You gave me space aids
and now you effectively taken away offensive deployment away from my 'home'....
Oh but you have given the griefer in a kestrel a great tool to get their s**ts and giggles....
Nice CCP nice..... *slow clap* If all your neighbours weren't blue you wouldn't need to "deploy away from your home".
Part of the attraction of such a large universe is the ability to travel long distances and punch people in the face.
I am not saying the game doesn't need change, in particular sov mechanics but they have, in 2 horrible patches removed so much of the different ways to pvp it's kinda crazy. I don't want to be in an almost permanent defensive posture which this patch is going to push on all sov holding alliances.
Does it get rid of the blue donut(s)?? Of course not...
Does it make it easier for smaller entities to take and hold sov?? Of course not.
|
Nyan Lafisques
Fairly Ganked
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:45:32 -
[449] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Am I wrong to believe that the new system involves a lot less destruction? In the old system - apart from stations, sov structures were being shot at and destroyed, which provided an engine for the eve economy. In the new system, basically you flash a light at a sov structure and it flips back and forth in a glorified game of tag, no destruction required. As a result, have we just lost a significant driver of the eve economy?
They will explode once the attackers control the Capture-the-flag/Domination system. |
Kiandoshia
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2186
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:46:38 -
[450] - Quote
I don't like the primetime thingy. I don't know, everything else sounds nice and will have to see and it makes sense in conjunction with the primetime thing but the primetime thing itself is a little terrible and it kind of makes everything else buckle.
Also yay for lots of tiny, fluid engagements. Ships bigger than cruisers are boring anyways. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1355
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:46:57 -
[451] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Am I wrong to believe that the new system involves a lot less destruction? In the old system - apart from stations, sov structures were being shot at and destroyed, which provided an engine for the eve economy. In the new system, basically you flash a light at a sov structure and it flips back and forth in a glorified game of tag, no destruction required. As a result, have we just lost a significant driver of the eve economy? TCUs and IHUBs are blown to smithereens once an attacker successfully contests their sov game. This is especially important for IHUBs, which are freighter sized.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Nyan Lafisques
Fairly Ganked
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:47:33 -
[452] - Quote
Heptameron wrote:Nyan Lafisques wrote:Heptameron wrote:So you took away hot drops You took away fast moving cap warfare You took away large supercap fights You gave me space aids
and now you effectively taken away offensive deployment away from my 'home'....
Oh but you have given the griefer in a kestrel a great tool to get their s**ts and giggles....
Nice CCP nice..... *slow clap* If all your neighbours weren't blue you wouldn't need to "deploy away from your home". Part of the attraction of such a large universe is the ability to travel long distances and punch people in the face. I am not saying the game doesn't need change, in particular sov mechanics but they have, in 2 horrible patches removed so much of the different ways to pvp it's kinda crazy. I don't want to be in an almost permanent defensive posture which this patch is going to push on all sov holding alliances. Does it get rid of the blue donut(s)?? Of course not... Does it make it easier for smaller entities to take and hold sov?? Of course not.
Nobody is forcing you to hold your space if what you want is constant deployments. BL and others are doing it just fine. |
Maya Cinderfort
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:47:37 -
[453] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Am I wrong to believe that the new system involves a lot less destruction? In the old system - apart from stations, sov structures were being shot at and destroyed, which provided an engine for the eve economy. In the new system, basically you flash a light at a sov structure and it flips back and forth in a glorified game of tag, no destruction required. As a result, have we just lost a significant driver of the eve economy?
tcu & ihub still explode when captured |
Tia Lee
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:47:43 -
[454] - Quote
Congrats, you made conquering sov easier. Now, CCP, you need to create more incentive for people to actually hold sov. Nullsec is where EVE shines! It's everything which is great about EVE in its purest form!
Make holding sov more lucrative! Create a huge migration from highsec to nullsec driven by greed! CCP, you NEED to accomplish this! This is your primary objective! If you manage to do that, EVE will thrive and even grow for many years to come! |
MajorScrewup
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:48:43 -
[455] - Quote
There should be ways to make these indices go down. If nobody uses the space then there should be deterioration to a system where after a few weeks if becomes neutral space .
There are ways to build them up from zero to five for the defenders, which is good and shows that a system is in use by the residents, but the attackers can only keep the level stable by killing everyone there , there should be a means to lower it; either by attacking structures, killing npcs, or by forcing the residents to move somewhere else where lack of activity makes the indices deteriorate. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
884
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:48:53 -
[456] - Quote
Drone Plague wrote:
So if your not active in your alliance's prime time you can say goodbye to having anything to do.
You are unfortunate to not being able to contribute to active defense, but you certainly contribute to passive defense. Ever think about playing offense? There is no prime time there at all.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
271
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:49:04 -
[457] - Quote
MajorScrewup wrote:Example... They look around at all the regions nearest to them and see that the sov owners all play at a different time and have set their prime time for a time that none of them could log in for. They look further afield and then across the entire map and realize that they can never experience an attempt to gain sov as no-one has set a prime-time when this group of players can log in.
More like they look around and see that if they claim sov in their radically unrepresented TZ they can effectively become immune to everyone else. So they stay up late one weekend night to claim one quiet/undefended constellation, set the timers to their own TZ once claimed, and no one ever threatens them again because apparently they play from the moon in a special TZ all their own.
Or, even more likely, there will OF COURSE be some alliances somewhere playing in a similar TZ and they should go fight them, instead of playing a game of whack a mole with people they never even see online.
|
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:49:12 -
[458] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss 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~ Not emptying quoting. Not empty quoting of a quote |
Olya Tsarev
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:50:03 -
[459] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:"every time people mock me for faceplanting they're secretly validating they care about me :3:"
I mean, if that's how you want to deflect the reality of him being an IRL slow-brain then that's cool I guess.
KIller Wabbit wrote:Uh, no? Trolling will get your post deleted. It's put up or shut up.
The evidence is as real as his |
Callic Veratar
661
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:51:52 -
[460] - Quote
Bubble immune 2-second align 250km locking 10mn MWD interceptors really are the bane of this new sov model. |
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
6118
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:52:35 -
[461] - Quote
Any plans to replace the index grinding with something more creative?
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:52:44 -
[462] - Quote
I'd like to be the first to say: rest in **** rental alliances |
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:52:44 -
[463] - Quote
Anton Menges Saddat wrote:I'm very much NOT feeling the primetime concept. It is idiotic and will restrict 'meaningful' battles to just one TZ and I cannot support that. I also say meaningful with quotations because I see no indication of actual benefits for taking/holding sov. Whye ven bother?
I am also envisioning troll fleets of slippery entosis interceptors. Interceptors are already annoying enough with their bubble immunity, this is just going to make it even worse.
I also don't appreciate the way capitals and especially supercapitals keep getting nerfed. At this point I'm having difficulty seeing usage for supers at all because they can't assign fighters, will not be put on-grid to fight subs due to atrocious lock-times and gimped offensive abilities (only 1 wing of fighters, no regular drones) and dreads are the more sensible option for killing other capitals. Ok I have a fix for the time zone problem it's super simple I think CCP wants this. Move to another time zone ;) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1355
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:53:14 -
[464] - Quote
MajorScrewup wrote:There should be ways to make these indices go down. If nobody uses the space then there should be deterioration to a system where after a few weeks if becomes neutral space .
There are ways to build them up from zero to five for the defenders, which is good and shows that a system is in use by the residents, but the attackers can only keep the level stable by killing everyone there , there should be a means to lower it; either by attacking structures, killing npcs, or by forcing the residents to move somewhere else where lack of activity makes the indices deteriorate. For military and industrial index, this already occurs. Industrial index in particular is notoriously hard to maintain.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Milton Middleson
Scrap Metal Squadron
558
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:53:25 -
[465] - Quote
Four hours is an awfully narrow window for attack. It does kind of hose off-tz people.
What if prime time was a four hour time frame where stuff would come out of reinforcement, and then you have +2 hours on either side where attackers could knock stuff into reinforced? Somewhat wider window for initiating an attack.
Or 1+6+1, if you want the 8 hour overall window but a less concentrated exit window. |
Tsikuu
Inappropriate Contact
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:53:47 -
[466] - Quote
Oh look at that Blizzard introduced play to play and now CCP decides to turn EVE into ThemeSov.
Shurley not missing talented people who have jumped ship for other gaming companies? Shurley NOT lacking in any real experience of playing the game? Shurley NOT killing EVE one cut at a time.
BRB training up some cepter alts to screw with sov. |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
287
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:54:12 -
[467] - Quote
Guess we will see how it goes, though I must cite my concerns at NOT being able to shoot structures. Surely internet spaceship territorial domination involving structures [remove the structures totally?] should have some shooting involved in taking them [just not hideous amounts of HP to grind through]. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1355
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:54:27 -
[468] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Bubble immune 2-second align 250km locking 10mn MWD interceptors really are the bane of this new sov model. I still want to see a fit for this that actually works. Feel free to discount tank for it, too.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
884
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:54:41 -
[469] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Am I wrong to believe that the new system involves a lot less destruction? In the old system - apart from stations, sov structures were being shot at and destroyed, which provided an engine for the eve economy. In the new system, basically you flash a light at a sov structure and it flips back and forth in a glorified game of tag, no destruction required. As a result, have we just lost a significant driver of the eve economy?
I believe it will shift to many more hull losses. Which does bring the wonder if the sheer number required can be supported even by localized builders.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1515
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:54:58 -
[470] - Quote
Well taking advice from the null posters who did everything within their power to troll up the Hyperion thread for wormhole space, and like them I know less than jack**** about your area of space, I must be uniquely qualified to pontificate about null changes.
Seems like an excellent series of changes.
Is it too early to utter the immortal cry "HTFU"? Too soon?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:55:01 -
[471] - Quote
Tyr Dolorem wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Aiwha wrote:I see two options, either we have another massive rebuild of supers (remember when they were motherships?) to fill an entirely new role, or CCP needs to give capital warfare a BIG shot in the arm. Personally, I'm for buffing and expanding capital roles. You know, I'm at the point that I wish CCP would just accept that the type of people that are going to be most attracted to supers as a concept are the people that will be happy to use supers for PvE and nothing else. And CCP should stop fighting this and just enable it. Nullsec PvE income should be switched from AFK carrier anomaly ratting to some form of (hopefully active rather than AFK) incursion/sleeper/escalation/L6 missions/whatever supercarrier-based PvE. The people that WANT to fly supercarriers are the ones looking for the purple loot, the raid gear, the biggest/baddest/bestest ship to blow up red crosses with. So fine, let's give it to them to do exactly that in nullsec. They can still be giant loot pinatas the rest of the time to attract/draw conflict. Everyone who actually flies supercarriers now does so because they HAVE to for PvP/blob/MAD reasons. Pretty much every one of those pilots would actually rather be in a T3 or a HAC or something a lot more fun for regular PvP purposes. I disagree with just about everything you said here. I mean.... wut...
Apparently he didn't understand eve had this thing called alts... that can be used to sit in things.
|
Nyan Lafisques
Fairly Ganked
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:55:06 -
[472] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Four hours is an awfully narrow window for attack. It does kind of hose off-tz people.
What if prime time was a four hour time frame where stuff would come out of reinforcement, and then you have +2 hours on either side where attackers could knock stuff into reinforced? Somewhat wider window for initiating an attack.
Or 1+6+1, if you want the 8 hour overall window but a less concentrated exit window.
A 6 hours window would be better, allow for at least 2 timezones to participate in the defense. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
278
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:55:14 -
[473] - Quote
RE: Command Nodes
Require the Defender to place the Command node(s) in each system of a constellation (or it be automatic w/ Sov costs) where the nodes decloak during Preferred Time/ Main Event but which ones can be interfaced with are random? Just a twist on the same idea but placing more onus on defender/ Sov owner -- cause right now without a proper explanation they just seem ... well random and disconnected from publicly known lore --- but mainly, defender should not only be more responsible for their Sov, but also be able to have some ability to help set the terms of engagement as well (ie location of Command Node in a system/constellation - near a gate or in the middle of no where) ~ just a thought to be a participant in the conversation.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Tsikuu
Inappropriate Contact
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:55:18 -
[474] - Quote
Gorski Car wrote:Xenuria wrote:I support this.
I agree...
How many free holidays to Iceland are you getting this time around Gor?
"Never bite the hand that gives out free stuff" |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
169
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:55:32 -
[475] - Quote
virm pasuul wrote:In all this fuss don't forget that destructible player built stargates are coming at some time. The fanfest is 2 weeks away, there may be stuff in there that ties in to these changes.........
I believe that's going to be only in "NEW SPACE" not the current regions of null sec.. so umm yeah good luck with that wish.
but what about the "idea" of Destructible Outpost/stations in null sec.. i'll wait and laugh at the threadnaught on that topic. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2055
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:55:33 -
[476] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Bubble immune 2-second align 250km locking 10mn MWD interceptors really are the bane of this new sov model. i hope your not serious i cant tell anymore here |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
88
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:55:35 -
[477] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Bubble immune 2-second align 250km locking 10mn MWD interceptors really are the bane of this new sov model. Is this new ship that can do all those things at once gonna be a cov ops as well? |
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:57:34 -
[478] - Quote
Querns wrote:MajorScrewup wrote:There should be ways to make these indices go down. If nobody uses the space then there should be deterioration to a system where after a few weeks if becomes neutral space .
There are ways to build them up from zero to five for the defenders, which is good and shows that a system is in use by the residents, but the attackers can only keep the level stable by killing everyone there , there should be a means to lower it; either by attacking structures, killing npcs, or by forcing the residents to move somewhere else where lack of activity makes the indices deteriorate. For military and industrial index, this already occurs. Industrial index in particular is notoriously hard to maintain. I can confirm this statement I'm like one of of 25 goons that mine so it is hard to keep that index up. |
Zedah Zoid
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:57:36 -
[479] - Quote
If mining is going to play a role here (and I think it should) then please, PLEASE, CCP bring back scannable ore sites. Both in WH and Null space. AFK cloakers will be less scary to miners and miners are more likely to get help from combat pilots if they have a least some small chance of seeing the probes that are their impending doom.
Down with ore Anoms, bring back ore Sites. If you must keep ore Anoms in high sec so the noobs can find them on the overlay, then do that but there's no need to handicap everybody in null with the ore Anom mechanic. It's terrible and it makes mining nearly impossible. |
BobFromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:57:43 -
[480] - Quote
I like everything but the 4 hour window. You're really punishing people who play at offpeak hours with this one. The entire Aus TZ is going to be basically struck from sov warfare through no fault of their own. Double or triple the window at the very least. If you're actively using your sov you should be able to defend it or gain it back without issue. |
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
884
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:57:50 -
[481] - Quote
Tia Lee wrote:Congrats, you made conquering sov easier. Now, CCP, you need to create more incentive for people to actually hold sov. Nullsec is where EVE shines! It's everything which is great about EVE in its purest form!
Make holding sov more lucrative! Create a huge migration from highsec to nullsec driven by greed! CCP, you NEED to accomplish this! This is your primary objective! If you manage to do that, EVE will thrive and even grow for many years to come!
There will be a migration. The alliances are going to have to actively court the HiSec carebears.
What's interesting is that I've been hearing that Rorqual pilot recruiting has been on the rise lately.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Sokor Loro
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:58:06 -
[482] - Quote
My only complaints:
- 4 hr window is too short, and it can really **** over multi-tz alliances (which are most sov nullsec alliances) in terms of content for members. Although prime time is effectively already a de facto mechanic, this just makes it official. It either needs to be 6+ hours or looked at again.
- Frigates with etosis links will be a problem, the range on t2 links will be a problem. Either make it so ships with links activated are immobile or 90% speed reduction like hictors, reduce the range from the absurd 250km, or just ban frigate hulls with them altogether. Or some combination of those three. It's good that a small group or even solo player can create timed content, but it is far too easy and risk-free to do it. Interceptor with sebos and overdrives will be nearly uncatchable. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
465
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:58:50 -
[483] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well taking advice from the null posters who did everything within their power to troll up the Hyperion thread for wormhole space, and like them I know less than jack**** about your area of space, I must be uniquely qualified to pontificate about null changes.
Seems like an excellent series of changes.
Is it too early to utter the immortal cry "HTFU"? Too soon?
well, I suppose we will have to amend the people supporting this to "npc corp members, and wormholers who freely admit they don't understand it but just want to troll" |
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:58:53 -
[484] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:virm pasuul wrote:In all this fuss don't forget that destructible player built stargates are coming at some time. The fanfest is 2 weeks away, there may be stuff in there that ties in to these changes......... I believe that's going to be only in "NEW SPACE" not the current regions of null sec.. so umm yeah good luck with that wish. but what about the "idea" of Destructible Outpost/stations in null sec.. i'll wait and laugh at the threadnaught on that topic. I like the idea of the future exploding stations **** YEAH. |
Dradis Aulmais
RW Vindicator Connection Phoebe Freeport Republic
705
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:58:56 -
[485] - Quote
Doesn't change a thing for us.
*clap clap clap*
Love it
CSM 10: Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Chance Ravinne, Jenshae chrioptera
Do No Vote For: Tora Bushido, Bobmon
|
Callic Veratar
662
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:59:12 -
[486] - Quote
Querns wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:Bubble immune 2-second align 250km locking 10mn MWD interceptors really are the bane of this new sov model. I still want to see a fit for this that actually works. Feel free to discount tank for it, too. Obviously, you just put a couple shield extenders on it. They'll go well with the istabs and sensor boosters. Plus whatever hacks you're using to make it all cap stable. Also discounting that the elink makes you unable to warp away for 10-40 minutes.
Yes, the interceptor will be unstoppable by anything not counting pretty much everything. |
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:00:04 -
[487] - Quote
Tsikuu wrote:Oh look at that Blizzard introduced play to play and now CCP decides to turn EVE into ThemeSov.
Shurley not missing talented people who have jumped ship for other gaming companies? Shurley NOT lacking in any real experience of playing the game? Shurley NOT killing EVE one cut at a time.
BRB training up some cepter alts to screw with sov. Hey take your time you got tell June :) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1356
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:00:51 -
[488] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well taking advice from the null posters who did everything within their power to troll up the Hyperion thread for wormhole space, and like them I know less than jack**** about your area of space, I must be uniquely qualified to pontificate about null changes.
Seems like an excellent series of changes.
Is it too early to utter the immortal cry "HTFU"? Too soon? There is no need to be upset.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:00:55 -
[489] - Quote
Dradis Aulmais wrote:Doesn't change a thing for us.
*clap clap clap*
Love it Holy crap you guys are still around. |
T Rad
Intergalactic Conquest and Development Brothers of Tangra
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:01:17 -
[490] - Quote
So, it's all about to kill everithing epic in EVE (cap fleets, shiny and mean T3 fleets, giant fleet fights, etc ) and convert it to 'Space rangers online'.... oh! sorry, 'Rusty Rifters in space Online'? Am I understanding that's right, CCP? ****ing around in bunch of ceptors, capturing systems (just to reset the hubs and ROFL) - is THAT you want 0sec to be? Does any of game designers , who came with this 'ideas' played EVE ( I mean actually playing game, not deleting the game after failing on tutorial missions)? |
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1035
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:02:14 -
[491] - Quote
I'm not a null-sec player at all, but I have to say this blog made me seriously want to try going into null-sec once this goes live. In other words, I love this.
Having said that, there are some things that made me frown.
1. Only being able to attack in the defender's prime time. I can see the reasons for this, but this will effectively mean that alliances from different time zones will have a hard time getting into fights. Only during weekends when people have the ability to stay up late will they be able to fight in the defender's timezone. How is an EU prime time going to attack a AU prime time during a weekday for example. There's hardly enough EU people on during that time to make a serious dent. Either the prime time hours need to be expanded (6 to 8 hours) or it needs to go entirely. In fact, wasn't the entire concept of reinforcement designed to deal with time zone differences? This creates two mechanics that do the same thing. Either reinforce, or prime time. Not both.
2. Unless you care about having your alliance name plastered all over the map, TCU's now become the least targeted objective since capturing them does absolutely no benefit (unless you plan on putting up a new station). In fact, it would theoretically be possible to own and lock down an entirely constellation of systems, get their I-Hub indices to max, but still have the system claimed by your enemy. Though I suppose the 25% fuel bonus is a good incentive to attack something that is most likely not going to be defended anyway after the station and I-Hub have already been taken.
3. "Maximum range of 25km for Tech One, 250km for Tech Two."
The f*ck? That's probably the widest difference for any module found in the game. And a 60m isk difference is not enough to cover that gap. At the very least the T2 version should be much more expensive with a range like that, maybe even make it restricted to battleships and capitals.
Other than that I think these changes are absolutely amazing. We'll have to see how much the 'smaller guy' is able to get in on the action in practice, but it can only get better than what we have. If the plans get a little refined, I might have to seriously consider joining a null-sec alliance again. Awesome work!
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Aliventi
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
830
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:04:46 -
[492] - Quote
- The industry index should include more things than just just mining. Perhaps industrial jobs, invention jobs, etc?
- I dislike the 4 hour window. Structures should be able to be put into reinforced (RF) mode at any time, but come out of the RF mode at the time set by the alliance owning the structure.
- The SOV system should give NO notification that someone is using a Entosis Link on any of your structures or that a structure has entered RF mode. That means active defense not reactive defense. If you are truly living in your space and using your space you should have no trouble realizing someone is using a link on one of your structures or that one of your structures has entered RF mode. If you fail to do that then the RF timer countdown that is visible system wide (like POCOs are now) will let you know. If you fail to realize that then you probably deserve to lose your SOV anyway.
|
Tiberizzle
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
61
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:04:57 -
[493] - Quote
fire fozzie lol |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:05:57 -
[494] - Quote
It sounds to me like all the folks complaining about the change simply don't want to fight.
If someone puts a thingy on your station to reinforce it and you put your own thingy on it then the progress is paused. So now you have a battle. Kill their guy and they have to put another one on it. To me it doesn't seem like ceptors will cut it and i think you're overreacting.
This change promotes smaller skirmish fights. Don't be such a whiney bunch of bears.
Real attempts to take sov will still escalate to epic cap fleets and t3 fleets. |
Horak Thor
Mutiny Ahoy
235
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:06:18 -
[495] - Quote
I was pretty worried about what you could possibly do to fix null but reservedly excited.
This is better than i could have imagined. Good job CCP role on JUUUUUUNE
Also dat nerf to PL, not really known for its subcap prowess so being hired to take/defend sov is going to be a distant memory.
.....
|
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:07:01 -
[496] - Quote
I zoned out like 20 times reading this and had forgotten 60% of it when I reached the end. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3176
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:07:16 -
[497] - Quote
Why hold Sov: 25% reduction in the cost of running your moon mining POSes, or any other POSes. If that's not enough of a reason, then don't set a TCU. Just hold your station and IHUB.
Worries about this turning the game into whack-a-mole, chasing small groups or single ships all over the place: Consider consolidating your members into fewer systems. With fewer systems to defend, only a small fraction of the members will need to be on defense duty at any given time. The rest are free to go do whatever. Remember, you can stop a reinforcement attempt just by shooting the structure with your own Entosis link. You do not need to kill the attacker.
Worries about time zones: Join an alliance in your time zone, and go attack those alliances that are also in your time zone. Actually, this seems to be a big issue. It could well result in Null fracturing into blocks, each operating in its own time zone. Sov will swap around inside each block, but rarely will there be a swap from one block to another. It's almost like sharding Null.
The thing is, I have yet to hear a good alternative. Make it random? Then sov changes on the luck of the time slot draw. Make the first attack able to happen at any time? Then the game becomes even more of whack-a-mole, with defenders having to go capture 10 nodes for every out-of-time zone gang that shows up. Make it up to the attackers? Too much advantage.
Renters: Just change from "Renting" to a protection racket. "Yes, you will be holding Sov in the systems we are renting to you. But either pay us the rent fee, or we will squish you".
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Igor Nappi
Perkone Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:07:28 -
[498] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:It sounds to me like all the folks complaining about the change simply don't want to fight. They are called nullbears for a reason
Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
278
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:07:52 -
[499] - Quote
Also regarding Command Node(s) and capture:
Re: Adding the need to scan down Command nodes:
Which equals diversity in game play.
If we're removing grinding then something has to be hard... right now it's attacker advantage the way populated Sov is currently used... i.e. BLOB warps in suddenly to system and griefs station by reinforcing everything services wise
Defender is at disadvantage because it's suprise attack, and the time to organize a defense ---
When it comes to actual Sov capture there isn't a decisive advantage for defender over attacker, which is fine, but once the command nodes start popping it's just a race to see who can come across the anomoly first
It would be nicer if some sill was involved of actually having to scan the things down instead of attacker just pre posiition in "spotters" in every constellation system and then via comms deploy the fleet
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
470
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:08:11 -
[500] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote: Real attempts to take sov will still escalate to epic cap fleets
why? reason this out for me, what advantage does a cap fleet give you in holding five specific grids in a constellation, especially given spaceaids |
|
na'Vi Ronuken
Louis Nothing And Nobody
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:08:36 -
[501] - Quote
I think what you will end up seeing is coalitions consolidate to mega alliances based on TZ and corps would be tasked with living in their own consttillation.
This dev blog also does not describe what happens when sov flips while a super is in build. |
Tsikuu
Inappropriate Contact
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:08:46 -
[502] - Quote
Igor Nappi wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:It sounds to me like all the folks complaining about the change simply don't want to fight. They are called nullbears for a reason
It's okay, when they nerf Incursions into the ground and move level 4 missions into lowsec I am sure your gameplay will not change :D |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
885
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:09:16 -
[503] - Quote
McBorsk wrote:I zoned out like 20 times reading this and had forgotten 60% of it when I reached the end.
Implants man. Implants. Or a big pot of Quafe.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Igor Nappi
Perkone Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:10:10 -
[504] - Quote
Tsikuu wrote:Igor Nappi wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:It sounds to me like all the folks complaining about the change simply don't want to fight. They are called nullbears for a reason It's okay, when they nerf Incursions into the ground and move level 4 missions into lowsec I am sure your gameplay will not change :D You would be correct in your assumption.
Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:12:46 -
[505] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote: Real attempts to take sov will still escalate to epic cap fleets
why? reason this out for me, what advantage does a cap fleet give you in holding five specific grids in a constellation, especially given spaceaids
A group that really wants your sov will bring carriers ... now you've got carriers on grid for dps or logi .. either way now you bring dreads to the party and triage of your own. Next they will escalate with supers and it's time to put that titan on the field. Battles where large groups are determined to gain that sov will still escalate to large battles. now once you get through the timer you get the mini games with the nodes all over the constellation ... another neat mechanic .. the fleet splits up to cover all the systems and more good fights ensue. Thats how it plays out in my mind anyway. If i held sov and someone brought in a carrier i'd be undocking dreads and hics.... forcing them to escalate further. |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS Shadow Cartel
661
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:13:02 -
[506] - Quote
I find the changes really good.
When is about defending no mechanics can't stop a larger force to dominate smaller groups. At least the propose changes make easier for smaller groups to harass bigger coalitions. So overall i find it quite well thought. But will need some additional changes to make it complete.
- Entosis link is quite good except the 250 KM T2 range. Kiting, range doctrines will be the main doctrine for the bigger fights for the most part. Let brawlers play their part in the warfare also.
- Operating independently is a great idea. I like the the TCU is mostly a bragging structure.
- The prime time idea is half good, it should be more like POCO mechanics. You can attack whenever you want but you defend in the hours you like the most. IHUB should give better and more variannts of boosts except when it is reinforced. If this would be the case for the IHUB the PRIME time rule should be ok for it.
- Command nodes will favor blobs much more than it is now. My 20 man fleet can be only at one place at time. If ppl come with 50 guys we lost it even tough we can take on 50 guys. My best advise would be to spawn them in only one random adjacent system of the reinforced target so a smaller group can block the way. To many targets will give
- Freeport mode is just damn awesome.
- Occupancy defense bonuses are a good idea.
When said that more things need to change if we want a great nullsec experience.
- Moon mining needs to be active and not passive. - AFK cloaking must be gone - Warp immune ceptors need to go - Trading between nullsec entities needs to be a thing. There needs to be a rearrangement of resources. Certain parts of space needs to be abundant of some (basic) materials and lack of other. Dependent of where you live you will fly doctrines made most of the ships you can build there. Make ti so you can build most of the ships but mass produce only those that have abundant ressources for manufacturing it. - Jump Fatigue must be harsher and it needs to take in account transport ships also. People moan about living in nullsec needs more incentive. Make ti very hard to import from jita and nullsec will be a dream for miners, ratters and explorers. Make nullsec powerblocs beg for carebers and industrialists and not to mass only PvP ers. The further you go from the highsec the richer the space should be. - Also mining, missions and exploring should be a bit less profitable in highsec and nerf into the ground the highsec incursions and buff up nullsec ones.
- A big bonus would be to make mining and ratting mechanics a bit more challenging and interesting.
TYVM for listening
BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1519
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:13:04 -
[507] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well taking advice from the null posters who did everything within their power to troll up the Hyperion thread for wormhole space, and like them I know less than jack**** about your area of space, I must be uniquely qualified to pontificate about null changes.
Seems like an excellent series of changes.
Is it too early to utter the immortal cry "HTFU"? Too soon? well, I suppose we will have to amend the people supporting this to "npc corp members, and wormholers who freely admit they don't understand it but just want to troll" Joking aside, I actually wish you every success in getting a vibrant and healthy nullsec, It is all of our best interests,and I do watch with real interest.
It is simply a reminder that we should respect the other areas of space and those who live in them, and I hope when it comes back around, we can all learn that lesson, and not disrupt and distort valuable and meaningful discussion.
And all are better for it. Good luck.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Illindar Tyrannus
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:13:10 -
[508] - Quote
So the concept of Timezone is terrible as many people have said before not only does it make section of space perfectly safe for the majority of the day but then creates a situation where alliances in different timezone cannot meaningfully interact with each other without alarm clocking. Please don't do this!
The other issues are if the new links can be on cepters I agree that this will cause problems when I can get max dudes and go reinforce eve on a slow weekend. but also if they can't go on cepters whats to stop alliances from creating unbreakable camps at choke points? |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:13:24 -
[509] - Quote
I finally figured out the reasoning behind this change.
Pre- Jump Fatigue it was normal to see 50K + people logged in.
Post- Jump Fatigue you're lucky to see 40K
After this change I imagine it will be around 25K
Hence, they have finally solved the lag problem. |
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:13:58 -
[510] - Quote
Tons of time, ************, drugs and bathtime after my first thoughts on new changes I think that this enormous mountain of **** combined with the removal of space aids (aka fatigue if you're a pubblie/frigate ******) could result, really, in an epic amount of good battles. |
|
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
217
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:14:23 -
[511] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:It sounds to me like all the folks complaining about the change simply don't want to fight.
If someone puts a thingy on your station to reinforce it and you put your own thingy on it then the progress is paused. So now you have a battle. Kill their guy and they have to put another one on it. To me it doesn't seem like ceptors will cut it and i think you're overreacting.
This change promotes smaller skirmish fights. Don't be such a whiney bunch of bears.
Real attempts to take sov will still escalate to epic cap fleets and t3 fleets.
There won't be fights because the optimal way to do things right now is with ceptors, petes, and Svipuls fitted with T2 sov lasers. Or with disposible T1 frigates.
If they come for you, you run for the duration of the cycle, then repeat the process elsewhere. Or you use T1 frigates and just send hundreds of the things into enemy space, they will miss a couple.
An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
659
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:17:50 -
[512] - Quote
Rowells wrote:X Gallentius wrote:xartin wrote:gment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.
Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.
UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.
How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly. stront timers can differ, this primetime thing cannot. Some towers and structures may come out at different times than others for whatever purpose.
Then how is it different from current Ihub timers?
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
757
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:18:35 -
[513] - Quote
Sov wack-a-mole with no benefit for doing it. Why am I not surprised? |
Bezdar22
Militaris Industries Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:19:26 -
[514] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:It sounds to me like all the folks complaining about the change simply don't want to fight.
If someone puts a thingy on your station to reinforce it and you put your own thingy on it then the progress is paused. So now you have a battle. Kill their guy and they have to put another one on it. To me it doesn't seem like ceptors will cut it and i think you're overreacting.
This change promotes smaller skirmish fights. Don't be such a whiney bunch of bears.
Real attempts to take sov will still escalate to epic cap fleets and t3 fleets. There won't be fights because the optimal way to do things with current implementation is with ceptors, petes, and Svipuls fitted with T2 sov lasers. Or with disposible T1 frigates. If they come for you, you run for the duration of the cycle, then repeat the process elsewhere. Or you use T1 frigates and just send hundreds of the things into enemy space, they will miss a couple.
i agree.. CCP is ruining the game again |
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:19:34 -
[515] - Quote
McBorsk wrote:I zoned out like 20 times reading this and had forgotten 60% of it when I reached the end. You and the dabigredboat both. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:19:50 -
[516] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:It sounds to me like all the folks complaining about the change simply don't want to fight.
If someone puts a thingy on your station to reinforce it and you put your own thingy on it then the progress is paused. So now you have a battle. Kill their guy and they have to put another one on it. To me it doesn't seem like ceptors will cut it and i think you're overreacting.
This change promotes smaller skirmish fights. Don't be such a whiney bunch of bears.
Real attempts to take sov will still escalate to epic cap fleets and t3 fleets. There won't be fights because the optimal way to do things with current implementation is with ceptors, petes, and Svipuls fitted with T2 sov lasers. Or with disposible T1 frigates. If they come for you, you run for the duration of the cycle, then repeat the process elsewhere. Or you use T1 frigates and just send hundreds of the things into enemy space, they will miss a couple.
That doesn't make sense. Whatever force their bring to attack your sov with is just another fleet. gilas eat tactical destroyers. There is a counter for any fleet type don't act like some simple fleet comp is just going to stomp all over this system.
Your alliance will need good intel and capable QRF to engage the aggressing alliance before they reinforce the structure. If everyone wants to hide in station and be pussies then yup any fleet comp will in fact do the job and you'll be homeless in two days. |
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:21:01 -
[517] - Quote
Minmatar Citizen160812 wrote:Sov wack-a-mole with no benefit for doing it. Why am I not surprised? But but the benefit is fights....in nullified, stabbed, kitey no-commit fits |
Shalazan
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:21:05 -
[518] - Quote
At night, there are fairies. And these magical fairies can only come out in the deepest darkest night four a few hours. Now these fairies have magical wands, known by the village elders as "Entosis Links". Now, during these few hours the magic fairies can use their wands to cause trouble, reinforcing the castles of the land and making terrible timers appear on them. Now the abandoned castles take no time at all, because nobody loves them and have abandoned them, you know what that's like. But in heavily used castles, the magic fairies may have to use their wands longer and put more magic into the the castle before it falls.
Now, when these magic faeries use their special wands they become vulnerable and unable to move! During this time the knights of the castle can defend their lord and banish these fairies in an explosion. Additionally, magical wizards can also use these wands to defend their land and stop the magic of the fairies from reinforcing the land. Now, if the magic fairies are successful in reinforcing the castle, it will have a timer. When this magical hour glass is done ticking down, it will cause magical places to pop up in the area of that castle. The wizards and fairies must once again battle using their wands for control of these magical lands to control the overall castle. If the defending wizards control the majority of these lands, the castle is saved and the fairies have to wait until its dark again to attack. But if the fairies win, the castle will be locked open for all to use and visit by the gods of generosity for two days, after which another magical battle for all the land occurs, where the one who holds the majority of the lands gets the castle.
The end.
[i]Shalazan
Head Diplomat / Recruiting Officer
Internet Terrorists[/i]
|
Def Monk
Phoenix Navy Research and Development Phoenix Naval Systems
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:21:12 -
[519] - Quote
So, I like what's going on. The gameplay is interesting and spread out, and should result in some interesting fun. As someone who simply day-trips into nullsec, this is even a great way to force fights with locals, even without the intention of taking ownership of the space.
That said, my problems with it are quite similar to Greygal's:
Greygal wrote: - Get rid of the "prime time" idiocy. Just nuke it. - Giving defensive bonuses to systems that are actively used is Good IdeaGäó - But you need to add a penalty to NOT using systems, so that systems that are unused eventually just drop sov, or become ridiculously easy to take. - How about making those 48 hour timers much shorter in systems that have low activity levels?
My proposed solutions are a bit different though.
I understand the want for the 'prime time', but feel the current iteration is lacking. The hope was probably that smaller groups (people who can't be on in all timezones) would be able to be on when their space needs defending, but instead, this is just going to make it extremely difficult to take space from larger groups. My proposal comes in three pieces:
- First, make prime time a series of timeslots. The size (with a minimum of an hour, max 24), time of day, and number of slots (you could have a one hour slot, twice a day, in your two main timezones) would be left entirely up to the current owner. It must add up to a length comparable to size of the alliance though - that is, large blocs may have this 'prime time' required to add up to 20 hours of the 24 hour day (subject to tweaking numbers, of course).
- Second, prime times become entirely private. No need to show them to other alliances because...
- Third, the initial reinforcement can start at any time of day. Once it is reinforced, it randomly selects a time inside the prime times, as currently, after the 48 hours, in which the reinforcement ends and the capture event begins.
This system would still have the effect of enabling owners to effectively react to reinforcement. Now though, the initial vulnerability attack can happen at any time, and so this avoids larger groups stone-walling defense during those 'prime times' to stop reinforcement altogether. Last, smaller groups will be able to have their smaller vulnerability window that helps with their activity when it actually matters most (the capture event). I still don't feel like the mechanic is perfect, but abandoning it altogether ignores the vulnerability that comes with being unable to man all timezones effectively, so I feel this method addresses concerns.
The next piece would be, as Greygal mentioned, rewards for activity. I think a simple solution to the problem of inactivity would be keeping track of the index levels for all groups, regardless of whether they're the current owners. Then, the calculations could be made exectly the same as defenses, except helping the attackers.
To put out an example, space perfectly actively used by owners would work as proposed. That means there is a 4x time for others to capture things (40 minutes for a node). Say this attacker has also managed to use the space just as actively, either through subverting the inhabitants (small groups stealing sites and ore) or a friendly alliance living there as well (who decides to betray their friend and attack). Since they cannot gain strategic index (they do not own the system), the max they could manage would be a 3.5x multiplier. This would then be used to reduce their timers: 4 / 3.5 = 1.14x, or managing to drag the timer back down to 11 minutes, 24 seconds. The owner would keep their timer of 10 minutes.
Likewise, if the owner does not have any use of a system and has simply held it for a long time, they can manage a multiplier of 1.5x. If the attacker has been using the space as above, and has the 3.5x multiplier, it would only take 4 minutes and 17 seconds (1.5 / 3.5 = 0.4286x of 10 minutes) to capture a node, making it much easier to take abandoned space if they have been living there unopposed. If the owner still decides to show up to defend the space they're not using, they still have their 10 minute timer.
Last, if a group has no activity AND they have just recently taken the space (ie, like a big bloc taking space just because they can and moving on in a large sweep), they would have a multiplier of 1x. Another group with 3.5x results in only taking 2 minutes and 51 seconds to take the nodes, which is significantly short.
Greygal wrote: Where are the economic improvements? Is that coming this year also? Just curious.
Last, I'd also be interested in this. All this should make for a much more fun and dynamic system for taking null, but what's the point of people taking it in the first place? I'd much rather live in another space and not have to worry about defending it against other people. Normally, I am all for WH space being the most dangerous, and therefore the most profitable, but with this new system, the individual will need much more incentive to want to have to put up with a much more involved defense, and in turn, dangerous space considering the quicker turnover (though, that could fall on alliance management to give those incentives through the top-down moon mining profits, but I feel something more COULD be done). |
Sir SmashAlot
The League of Extraordinary Opportunists Intergalactic Conservation Movement
150
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:21:23 -
[520] - Quote
I like the purposed ideas. I like the vulnerability window, however a rigid 4 hour window does go against current EVE organizational structures which over time as alliances grow they usually span all time zones.
I expect that this vulnerability window will be tweaked numerous times as this will be a major sticking point for content generation.
Some groups will want to focus on a specific time zone, they will benefit under this system. Successful alliances that offer great culture and experiences for their members, under this system will be forced to choose which time zones get A,B,C areas of content. I do not see breaking up these large entities as a good thing, but maybe I am wrong.
A scalable system might be a possible option where alliances choose their vulnerable windows and size but receive X, Y, Z benefits for accepting greater risk. This would allow time zone focused groups the best opportunity to defend their space, but also allow larger entities the ability to give their member base the full gambit of content by accepting more risk.
Interesting times ahead! |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4201
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:21:40 -
[521] - Quote
Are the HP and Anchor/Online times for IHUBs and TCU's being adjusted? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2059
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:21:54 -
[522] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Rowells wrote:X Gallentius wrote:xartin wrote:gment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.
Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.
UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.
How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly. stront timers can differ, this primetime thing cannot. Some towers and structures may come out at different times than others for whatever purpose. Then how is it different from current Ihub timers? You cant have timers spread across 24hrs anymore with this. Only four. Not every (in fact not many) alliances are single-TZ. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
92
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:22:06 -
[523] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:I finally figured out the reasoning behind this change.
Pre- Jump Fatigue it was normal to see 50K + people logged in.
Post- Jump Fatigue you're lucky to see 40K
After this change I imagine it will be around 25K
Hence, they have finally solved the lag problem. You didn't read the first devblog and look at the pretty graphs did you...
More players in nullsec since the changes. More activity in nullsec since the changes. More pvp in nullsec since the changes.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/where-we-stand/ < for your convenience |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
659
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:22:14 -
[524] - Quote
Schmell wrote:Man, chaos is coming.
What are gonna do with sov upgrades? They grow for like month, and won'be viable in current state when a system can switch owners like 3 times a week
Sov can already change in three week's time, but nobody has the nearby enemies nor willingness to do so.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Box thatmunches
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:22:53 -
[525] - Quote
fairly new with all toons.... maybe time to give up game for a while.. just getting used to null. to create a cluster **** seams to b the goal here |
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:23:41 -
[526] - Quote
na'Vi Ronuken wrote:I think what you will end up seeing is coalitions consolidate to mega alliances based on TZ and corps would be tasked with living in their own consttillation.
This dev blog also does not describe what happens when sov flips while a super is in build. The supers go kaboooooooom it's obvious they don't like supers so they will just go POOF. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
341
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:24:55 -
[527] - Quote
I wonder if alliances, other than the original attacker and original owner, should be penalized during the Freeport capture event, for the sake of discouraging third parties from jumping in and having an easy time of things, while someone else does all the grunt-work for them. |
Novacrow
Blue Tridents Sev3rance
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:24:58 -
[528] - Quote
Entosis module should deactivate propulsion modules, and the T2 variant should be made to have a max range of 100-150km. |
Sarel Hendar
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:26:59 -
[529] - Quote
Interesting changes. Some good, some less so...
Freeport idea is good. Discourages not showing up for second reinforce battle as is currently in vogue.
Is there any sane reason to have Infomorph Psychology as controlling skill for the entosis module? We have a perfectly good and logical skill that could be applied here: Hacking.
I'd recommend restrictions on entosis module so that it can't be fitted into frigate- or destroyer-class hulls. Otherwise we'll have troll-fitted T3 Destroyers or Interceptors that'll be MWD-orbitting at 200 kilometers and nearly impossible to stop or hit.
Idea: In a twist to command nodes, you could have in addition to normal ones "variant" command nodes that have to be probed out and capturing which is worth slightly more than "regular" command nodes (eg. something like 1.1-1.3 "regular" ones). Nothing overwhelming, just some edge to the side willing/able to have a combat prober in fleet...
Timezone segmentation could be problematic. Needs thinking about.
ECM interactions with entosis will need thinking about. 200-Falcon troll fleets aren't fun for anyone.
Capital- and Supercapital roles will need thinking about. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1522
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:26:59 -
[530] - Quote
Zedah Zoid wrote:If mining is going to play a role here (and I think it should) then please, PLEASE, CCP bring back scannable ore sites. Both in WH and Null space. AFK cloakers will be less scary to miners and miners are more likely to get help from combat pilots if they have a least some small chance of seeing the probes that are their impending doom.
Down with ore Anoms, bring back ore Sites. If you must keep ore Anoms in high sec so the noobs can find them on the overlay, then do that but there's no need to handicap everybody in null with the ore Anom mechanic. It's terrible and it makes mining nearly impossible.
Even though wormhole space was trolled mercilessly, when we dared to suggest this, it is regardless, still a good idea, ore sites should require scanning.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
Zomgnomnom
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
58
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:27:04 -
[531] - Quote
Wow.... just wow.
There are so many problems with this it is hard to believe that people who apparently " play in sov" helped come up with it.
Can we please ask that before the end of CSM voting that the CSM transcripts of this are released. This way we know who to throw onto the trash heap and never dream of re electing again.
Seriously..... This is so bad I think you just gave me cancer.... |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
31
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:27:07 -
[532] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Total Newbie wrote:I finally figured out the reasoning behind this change.
Pre- Jump Fatigue it was normal to see 50K + people logged in.
Post- Jump Fatigue you're lucky to see 40K
After this change I imagine it will be around 25K
Hence, they have finally solved the lag problem. You didn't read the first devblog and look at the pretty graphs did you... More players in nullsec since the changes. More activity in nullsec since the changes. More pvp in nullsec since the changes. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/where-we-stand/ < for your convenience
Uh huh. Pretty graphs say whatever they want to say. Doesn't make them true. I live in null, and I just disagree there are more players here..... If there were, in fact, more players in null, road trips wouldn't be a necessity.
|
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:27:57 -
[533] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:I'm really confused. So, if the defensive window is not during your availability you have nothing to do and if it is during your availability you can't do anything else.
So... living in nullsec means you spend all your time defending sov and that's it?
Unbelievable
Your place seems to be the highsec dude ... |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
167
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:28:09 -
[534] - Quote
Princess Cherista wrote:Hendrink Collie wrote:Professor Headmash wrote:So if I'm part of an alliance that holds Sov, instead of doing different things every time I log in to keep me intrested and logging into the game.....I'm going to be constantly flying around chasing captor gangs griefing our sov?
Seems legit. No offense, but if you can't quickly deal with a ceptor gang using a module on your sov structures, you shouldn't even bother holding sov. Show me how to tackle less than 2 second aligning interceptors that dont want to be caught.
That's the point - I don't have to tackle it, or even kill it. Hell, I don't even need to chase it. I can park a defensive link at 0 on the module in a RLML Caracal and wait until the Ceptor pilot gets either bored or suicidal.
Remember, only one offensive and one defensive link will be allowed at a time. You have to be able to control the entire grid, or your opponent can just sit there and stop you without bothering to kill you.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Nina Lowel
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:29:04 -
[535] - Quote
So Alliance A wants to remove Alliance B from X Space. Alliance A has one TZ, alliance B has another. Alliance A can't do much to alliance B because alliance A doesn't have any alliance B TZ presence.
What does this do? Ensures that the large coalitions get even larger so they have full coverage of all TZ's.
Way to go CCP. It's a good thing I had absolutely zero hope in you actually fixing sov to begin with, at least now there's no real let down. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
93
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:29:11 -
[536] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:Uh huh. Pretty graphs say whatever they want to say. Doesn't make them true. I live in null, and I just disagree there are more players here..... If there were, in fact, more players in null, road trips wouldn't be a necessity.
Anecdotal evidence versus actual statistical evidence...nice
Also read the damn devblog, it explains why some areas of null have been quieter whilst there's been an overall increase across the whole game outside of your anecdotal situation. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
886
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:29:26 -
[537] - Quote
"A clear visual effect shows which ships are applying Entosis Links." Will this also be apparent from brackets? Most large fleet fights require zooming out considerably. Even zoomed in, visual identification would become near impossible if the ship carrying the link is buried in a fleet of 100 - unless we're gonna get that Hot Pink Pony skin effect that has been clamored for!
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:29:43 -
[538] - Quote
Quote:This means that Entosis Linking will replace shooting of structures in every part of the Sovereignty system. After the June release, shooting of structures will not play any part in Sovereignty.
\o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/
|
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
81
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:30:28 -
[539] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Tia Aves wrote:If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit. /r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite. when it comes to this, its not so much an anti-cfc circlejerk as a bunch of people who no longer hold sov people who hold sov but hate us realize how bad this is
My alliance holds sov. The internal reaction? "This may unironically be the best thing that ever happened for our alliance." |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
93
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:31:17 -
[540] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:"A clear visual effect shows which ships are applying Entosis Links." Will this also be apparent from brackets? Most large fleet fights require zooming out considerably. Even zoomed in, visual identification would become near impossible if the ship carrying the link is buried in a fleet of 100 - unless we're gonna get that Hot Pink Pony skin effect that has been clamored for! Just put a defensive link on it, fight the fleet battle then find the needle once the haystack is removed :) |
|
Pooptasticize
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:32:49 -
[541] - Quote
The timezone thing sucks.
Instead of invulnerable outside that window, you should give a big defense bonus. 10x or something. So with a max-sov rating and that you get a 40x timer out of primetime or a 4x during.
This makes it possible, but very hard, to take sov outside that window.
|
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:33:19 -
[542] - Quote
TCU MARKET CRASH
Quote:Future iterations on this system will add more structures that alliances can use to obtain new kinds of bonuses and effects in their space. - hmmm thinking about a static Worm hole module with a exit into high sec. |
Volmyr
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:34:30 -
[543] - Quote
Man, I wish I could sit around all day in Iceland huffing paint and trolling the people who pay my bills.
Seriously CCP, I can't even words right now to disgust my measure. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
167
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:35:28 -
[544] - Quote
Olya Tsarev wrote:Aryndel Vyst wrote:Sounds like you should report this to security and provide proof instead of being a big baby *****. Well actually here's the thing, I don't need to provide proof whatsoever. I can make these claims all I want. #FreedomOfSpeechYo You can indeed make all the claims you want. However, freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. I wish people would actually read the damned bill of rights if they're going to misapply it.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Scud Maximillion
Senex Legio The Old Contemptibles
113
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:35:54 -
[545] - Quote
I see this one brought out all the crazies.
Firstly, good job CCP. Most people here don't realise that you are actually looking for feedback. They are way too busy defending the past. I think here you have some excellent mechanics. The multiple command spawn, and actually having to have people from the defending alliance at the battle, are two examples of great ideas.
Here are a few suggestions.
1. I get you on the primetime intent but I think you need a bit more. Consider linking primetime variation with occupancy sov levels (not strategic tho). So, if occupancy levels (ie. mining and ratting only) are nonexistent, it can be hit at any time and the resulting timer can occur at any time. As occupancy levels increase, the window for both narrows. At full levels you get the four hour window. This means capitals matter and alliances can focus themselves on important systems. It deals with 99% of the concerns people have with this mechanic. Occupancy is now important.
2. I this no you really need to seriously buff the defensive bonus from occupancy. Strategic levels should be irrelevant, or largely so. You want people to see a benefit for their hard work. I think the current bonuses are far too low. Doing this will likely again eleimnate most of the concerns about frigs messing with people, and make alliances focus where it matters.
3. I think you need to introduce some incentives to alliances making the system work. This is what people are calling buff nullsec. Give them some bigger mining/ratting/whatever bonuses to systems which they are prepared to put in the effort to raise the index. You have given them the stick, now provided the cardot.
Again, good job. I hope my comments help work out issues with the planned mechanics. |
Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus S I L E N T.
107
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:36:12 -
[546] - Quote
Sarel Hendar wrote: Is there any sane reason to have Infomorph Psychology as controlling skill for the entosis module? We have a perfectly good and logical skill that could be applied here: Hacking.
Actually a good point
Sarel Hendar wrote: I'd recommend restrictions on entosis module so that it can't be fitted into frigate- or destroyer-class hulls. Otherwise we'll have troll-fitted T3 Destroyers or Interceptors that'll be MWD-orbitting at 200 kilometers and nearly impossible to stop or hit.
People that can't catch a fast ship have no business holding sov, and it requires a lock anyway so damps/ECM work. |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
20154
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:36:52 -
[547] - Quote
Well, It's.. different.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Vote Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10!
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1817
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:38:18 -
[548] - Quote
Now i just want to see what changes you guys will be doing to the null sec economics to make it more viabale and benifical to own fewer systems. Unless thats phase 3? then i'd say that should be phase 2.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
887
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:38:34 -
[549] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:"A clear visual effect shows which ships are applying Entosis Links." Will this also be apparent from brackets? Most large fleet fights require zooming out considerably. Even zoomed in, visual identification would become near impossible if the ship carrying the link is buried in a fleet of 100 - unless we're gonna get that Hot Pink Pony skin effect that has been clamored for! Just put a defensive link on it, fight the fleet battle then find the needle once the haystack is removed :)
I'd like to not burn my haystacks down, thank you very much. lol
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Dradis Aulmais
RW Vindicator Connection Phoebe Freeport Republic
705
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:39:23 -
[550] - Quote
HarlyQ wrote:Dradis Aulmais wrote:Doesn't change a thing for us.
*clap clap clap*
Love it Holy crap you guys are still around.
After this culutral win looks like we will be around a lot longer
CSM 10: Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Chance Ravinne, Jenshae chrioptera
Do No Vote For: Tora Bushido, Bobmon
|
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
887
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:41:17 -
[551] - Quote
Scud Maximillion wrote:
1. I get you on the primetime intent but I think you need a bit more. Consider linking primetime variation with occupancy sov levels (not strategic tho). So, if occupancy levels (ie. mining and ratting only) are nonexistent, it can be hit at any time and the resulting timer can occur at any time. As occupancy levels increase, the window for both narrows. At full levels you get the four hour window. This means capitals matter and alliances can focus themselves on important systems. It deals with 99% of the concerns people have with this mechanic. Occupancy is now important.
I like this.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
482
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:42:32 -
[552] - Quote
Caius Sivaris wrote:People that can't catch a fast ship have no business holding sov, and it requires a lock anyway so damps/ECM work. people who won't commit to a fight in any way have no business contesting sov |
yogizh
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:42:42 -
[553] - Quote
This was exactly what I have expected. Bad change that will be presented along the applause from empire masses that won't ever go into sov anyway, while leaving us "nullbears" with mouths wide opened and jaws dropped.
Sometimes it would be nice to get some vision along with the presented changes. Is this a plan to create some weird FW area with no extra advantages at all ? What is the point of this ? So far the only advantage of having sov is:
a) tower fuel alliance bonus b) ability to build supers
So far we saw: making jumpdrives close to useless, making JBs useless, no announced changes to very limited resources that a nullsec sov solar system offers (pathetic mining, very limited anomalies), messing up the refineries, rendering salvage useless (time x effort is hilarious with fully skilled noctis with t2 salvagers) and so on. I don't expect people from empire to understand this, regardless their mindless flapping and cheering (you showed us this time ).
Personally I see this progress (?) towards greater chaos that will generate random battles of unorganized small groups for some time before we all realize that lowsec should be the place for this kind of thing, small entities have nothing to gain by holding sov compared to staging in NPC null or lowsec, where they can use agents and have all their members comfortably packed in one station making them sweet sweet LPs.
I realize there will be tweaks to this (June is months away now), but this concept won't make nullsec system ownership more desirable. The effort fending off various trolls attacking systems, capturing those anoms, upgrading systems (good luck with freighter convoys small alliances).
Instead of giving the players something to look forward to, your are opening Pandoras box full of big nasty surprises. Remember the last one ? With the jumpdrives ? Coalitions still work, renting is still a thing, no new entities entered nullsec sov. Only fools and people who don't know much about sov can be happy about this.
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
887
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:42:43 -
[554] - Quote
Dradis Aulmais wrote:HarlyQ wrote:Dradis Aulmais wrote:Doesn't change a thing for us.
*clap clap clap*
Love it Holy crap you guys are still around. After this culutral win looks like we will be around a lot longer
I wanna know if CCP paid you for "Freeport" or if you guys knew something long before the rest of us.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
870
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:43:44 -
[555] - Quote
I like everything about this blog apart from the random spawning of capture nodes. I think the randomness detracts from the sense of strategic planning on the part of defending alliances.
I suggest the following alternative: Alliances setting up sov structures must set up control nodes when setting up the sov structure. Each sov structure must have a minimum of 3 control nodes linked with it before it has any effect. Those control nodes will be inert and invulnerable until the capture event for that sov structure takes place. Attackers must capture AND HOLD the majority of these nodes in order to capture the sov structure they are linked with. Defenders may choose to place many nodes to make the attackers job more difficult... Or they may choose to only place 3 to make them easier to defend The nodes self-destruct if the attackers capture the relevant sov structure or become invulnerable again if defenders win
Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
|
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
293
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:47:34 -
[556] - 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
So, because some people choose to work within a broken system to get an advantage over you, you are mad? |
Hugh Coloure
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:48:54 -
[557] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Total Newbie wrote:Uh huh. Pretty graphs say whatever they want to say. Doesn't make them true. I live in null, and I just disagree there are more players here..... If there were, in fact, more players in null, road trips wouldn't be a necessity.
Anecdotal evidence versus actual statistical evidence...nice Also read the damn devblog, it explains why some areas of null have been quieter whilst there's been an overall increase across the whole game outside of your anecdotal situation.
Link
People logging in is in a strong downward trend. The graphs you are pointing at lack a y-axis, they are impossible to interpret the scale of those changes without it. |
Callic Veratar
664
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:49:05 -
[558] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:I'm really confused. So, if the defensive window is not during your availability you have nothing to do and if it is during your availability you can't do anything else.
So... living in nullsec means you spend all your time defending sov and that's it? Unbelievable Your place seems to be the highsec dude ... Oh totally, pointing out that some pilots have been arguing that the only thing to do is defend when in the timezone and there's nothing to do if they're not in the timezone must clearly define my activities, alts, and understanding of the game.
If you're going to make an argument don't just spew garbage that is literally untrue. There's tons of stuff to do in all space and it's not always available in all time zones. I don't like the fixed time zone thing, which is why I suggested a more flexible option but sure, I can be dismissed out of hand too. |
Kossaw
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
121
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:49:54 -
[559] - Quote
Overall theres some really good ideas in here. Especially freeporting stations. Some things appear strange though ...
- It seems odd that the reinforcement window applies to the first attack on a structure as well as on the subsequent reinforcement timer. Surely it makes more sense that the first attack to put the structure into reinforced can happen at ANY time, but the structure only comes out of reinforced at a time decided by the defender ie. the same way it works now.
- Since capture the flag points appear constellation wide, it makes more sense for the reinforcement window to be set for a constellation rather than the entire alliance
WTB : An image in my signature
|
Tatsuj Khan
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:50:18 -
[560] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Altrue wrote:The bad stuff:[list] Yay! Brave Collective will pick an US timezone and thanks to your new system, ensure that EU and AU get no chances to defend their space EVER. At least, with the current system we had the opportunity to actively prevent the first attack... Now all is left is the defense of station services, very exciting. Or maybe Brave could split into multiple alliances for differing timezones that are loosely affiliated in a coalition but are much more independent and locally operated. And then maybe once in awhile those alliances might get bored and actually fight each other instead of blue-ing up half the map, or draw conflict from smaller groups that want to take on, say, only AU Brave but not the entirety of US/EU/AU Brave. Which, I think, was kind of the point. It's supposed to encourage these massive blocs to break up into smaller, localized units with people that actually PLAY TOGETHER in similar timezones, in space, with each other. Not just in name only.
This.
One of the best reasons for the change I've seen so far. Diversification, and get more players involved at a higher level such as leading and building rather than following the big blue blob around.
|
|
Winter Archipelago
Furtherance.
349
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:51:53 -
[561] - Quote
For those griping over the 250km range on the T2 mod, remember that you have to maintain a lock on the structure. You aren't going to get your 12km / sec Svipul or any Interceptor with that type of lock range. Those fast ships will have to be significantly closer, where that high speed of theirs is less useful (and they may not even be able to reach their max speed).
A Rapier's webs easily hit 40km. 52km overheated. Overheated Lachesis scrams reach 21km.
The further you get from the structure, the larger (and slower) the ship you'll have to use. Sure, you can add range-improving mods to a smaller ship, but then you're sacrificing the ability to reach and maintain high speeds.
Ransoms are accepted in Isk, Mods, Ships, and Dolls.
|
Kaliba Mort
Patriotic Tendencies Executive Outcomes
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:52:06 -
[562] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote: If i held sov and someone brought in a carrier i'd be undocking dreads and hics.... forcing them to escalate further.
Why? You can hold a carrier with a noob ship and a point. You can kill it with 20 interceptors.
https://zkillboard.com/kills/capitals/
Maybe CCP should just scrap this and go back to POS warfare. At least those required *effort* to both attack and defend and there were strategies involved, like kitting RF timers. You know, it was actually fun.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:55:04 -
[563] - Quote
Hugh Coloure wrote:LinkPeople logging in is in a strong downward trend. The graphs you are pointing at lack a y-axis, they are impossible to interpret the scale of those changes without it. Your original statement was about the Jumpnerf changes announced in September 2014 causing decreased player counts...
http://imgur.com/KuPaWqk
Please go do a handstand, I might get more sense from your other end. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
278
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:55:09 -
[564] - Quote
So in tweetfleet #slack Aaeriele brought up the question of how will this 4 hour window affect Alliances with multiple time zone pilots:
One answer proposed:
"Hmmm.... here's a thought - why not just attach the prefered time not to the Executor Corp window - but to each individual structure - TCU's come out in 1 4hr window, iHubs in another, and Stations in yet another --- this will give every multi-TZ member of an alliance a role to help protect sov structures etc."
While not perfect - it does do the following:
Dilutes player concentration /per Sov Structure
Spreads content across multiple time zones, rather than the 'assumed' single dominant time zone (many alliances have balanced or dual dominate time zones)
And other pro's that I"m to lazy to think of :P
Cause I think the concern is legitimate - right now content is spread because not all timers are in the same window -- with the timer set via the executor corp instead of the structure (or structure type), it prevents participation in content for everyone outside that window of time.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10014
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:55:50 -
[565] - Quote
I haven't read any other responses. Phase two sounds pretty slick.
The problem is that it doesn't address one of the underlying problems of null. WHY? What are we fighting for, what is the value of what we are fighting for.
Why fight for it when as a grunt who relies on pve for income I can just do faction warfare missions or wormhole stuff or lvls and incursions in high sec. Nothing you (CCP) does will have an effect to you address the why that in the past was nerf and created the 'renter's desert' that null became.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/those-anomaly-changes-in-full/
That didn't cause the desert (Dominion did) but it accelerated it. There needs to be a fundamental change in how null sec isk making/income/wealth generation works before anything else. While null generates a lot of isk and a good amount of wealth in the form of deadspace modules and implants, there are WAY better ways in EVE to make individual isk.
Until that's addressed and while the average null system can't accommodate more than a handful of people at one time, no amount of "Entosis based gameplay's going to matter. Null will continue to be the "Game of Thrones who gets to be LANDLORD" rather than something people do just for the fun of it.
|
Kossaw
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
121
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:55:53 -
[566] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:On a serious note, anyone care to speculate on how PL is going to get fights now?
Pretty much the same way we do at the moment. By reinforcing stuff and forcing people to undock and defend it.
WTB : An image in my signature
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:56:08 -
[567] - Quote
ok dident read all the pages here so i dont know if this have been asked and answered so here i go. with these new changes and removal of the stargate blockade units. it looks like stargates ahve nothing to do with sov anymore. so my question is. can we capture wormholes with these changes? |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
4643
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:56:18 -
[568] - Quote
I'm not qualified to address the sov topic, but I'll throw my 0.02 ISK in anyways as everyone else is.
I'll echo others in that I see no incentive to hold sov.
Vulnerability selection time is a bad idea.
Absentee sov should be easy to capture, but resident shouldn't. I personally don't consider 40 minutes much of an incentive.
Which leads me to the indices. If you want to promote industry, the bonuses have to reflect that. Also mining in nullses is broken. One need look no further than the Rorqual:
CCP Fozzie wrote:The Rorqual on the other hand... We are very aware of how dire need of help it is. We're at the moment in the Summer release gonna be taking... well its gonna keep its compression feature, but that's now gonna be shared with a starbase structure, so that's no more unique to it.
Its always a ship that has kind of languished as its got the bonuses for tractor beams, but then you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.
Its got the gang link bonuses, but it kind of also needs to be inside a force field, which is why we gave the mining links the exception when we removed all gang links from force fields.
So the goal here will be to make a ship that is the kind of thing you want to put into a belt, with extremely strong defensive bonuses, and the ability to not only protect itself but its friends, and the ability to provide also a strong benefit to your mining fleet. Get these things out where they're in a bit of some danger, but also where that danger is manageable, where it is actually sane to put them into that danger.
So more details of what we're thinking of for that will be coming in the future. We're still kind of at an earlier stage with that. That's not gonna be coming out in the Summer [2014] release, but it's one of the things we are thinking very heavily about, and plan on getting to basically next. "... basically next" = how many days / months / years? |
Nof Nof
Incertae Sedis
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:57:15 -
[569] - Quote
Lots of gsf tears on this thread. Can certainly understand why high level players would be upset as they have put in a lot of work and meta gaming to get where they are. My personal views on this change:
What's the incentive?
The incentive is for players to actually think for themselves and increase content. I dunno perhaps maybe control an r64 of their own? Perhaps get actual fights instead of blobbing with a safety net of supers?
I was a member of an alliance and you guys literally spent 8 weeks camping us so you could possibly get 1 super kill. Doesn't sound like there is much content for your membership under the blue doughnut regime. The current mechanics provides no incentive for anyone to move in to null sec.Do you call chasing timers and fighting for OTHER People's moons and isk content? Maybe for peons who want eve spoon fed to them sure. Not to mention the vast blue balling and arrogant nature of care bears who pay for a protection racket and sit in station and wait for their masters to come save them. Sure there is plenty of incentive for players to try null sec.
The incentive for living in null sec (under the proposed changes) iis a better game experience plain and simple.
The argument of: increasing system value to support more player.
the whole point of these changes are to spread people out and make.your blobs less viable. You wanna control so much space? Kudos to you but now you gotta spread your members out to do it. I know you would love to create impenetrable systems to sit and grind in your supers all day with no risk... but ya CCP and the player base already saw that coming.
for what it'd worth your leaders won the game, everyone recognizes it but in doing so it also destroyed the attraction and viability to garner new players and keep active players engaged. You will still be powerful and rich and who knows it may even make you better since your f1 monkeys will have to learn.
I agree that simultaneously with the changes that their should be 1 incentive to move to null sec. That incentive would be to greatly reduce income potential in hi sec. |
Winter Archipelago
Furtherance.
349
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:59:47 -
[570] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:If there were, in fact, more players in null, road trips wouldn't be a necessity.
I think that's caused less by the number of players present, and more by the number of players you have blue. Having 15,000 blues in the regions surrounding Cloud Ring (a region at the far edges of nullsec) is what's forcing you to travel so far.
Ransoms are accepted in Isk, Mods, Ships, and Dolls.
|
|
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:00:32 -
[571] - Quote
Nof Nof wrote:The incentive for living in null sec is a better game experience plain and simple. Is this real life??
|
JustSharkbait
Struggle Cuddle Violent Declaration
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:01:25 -
[572] - Quote
Overall, I am excited by this proposal. I think it is a step in the right direction. However, the immediate point of concern i see is the prime time feature. I like it for what it is, but am concerned on how that will effect the many alliances that have multiple timezones. It seems like only one TZ will get to have all the fun defensively.
The only overall concern i have is just to actually make having the SOV worth it as right now even taking away structure grinding does not add any great desire to have space. Alliance level money still comes from moons and renters so how will this help change that? |
Nuetor
ReD. Vengance Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:01:52 -
[573] - Quote
I dont normally reply to things going on in eve, but I know feel that I must CCP get your prioritys right you first need to sort out the mess you call high sec new players pay to play then have to pay a ganking alliance or corp to rat mission run mine whatever , before looking at Nul sec sort the basics out and maybe new player wont leave faster than they are joining . Has to capital ships players have trained for months if not years to fly them and then you come along and nerf the hell out of them and the only compensation you give those players are further nerfing , if you want to nerf something look at the new strategic destroyers ur bringing in so over powered its unbelievable. No more fixing things that dont need fixing look at the basics that do high sec and over powered ships and players in high sec not having to pay twice to play this game.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1360
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:02:06 -
[574] - Quote
Regarding the entosis links, I feel like 250km range for T2 is a little too powerful to fit on frigates and destroyers. Perhaps the T1 version should have frigate-level fitting requirements, but the T2 version require cruiser-or-above grid to fit? This would allay a lot of the concerns regarding 250km hyenas / 150km crows.
And unlike Mr. "10MN 250KM CLAW" here, I have fits for this: http://i.imgur.com/XEfdxHT.jpg <-- the hyena http://i.imgur.com/W8O1LIM.jpg <-- the crow
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3112
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:03:35 -
[575] - Quote
I see we're completely skipping the 'make Sov worthwhile to hold and fight over' part of the revamp.
brb, drafting an unironic 'bring back POS warfare' post
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
665
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:04:06 -
[576] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Bubble immune 2-second align 250km locking 10mn MWD interceptors really are the bane of this new sov model.
Except they won't be because a noobship can stop them from being effective.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
285
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:05:25 -
[577] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:Apparently he didn't understand eve had this thing called alts... that can be used to sit in things.
Yeah... because they are called alt coffins out of love, right? Just because people do a thing out of necessity doesn't mean we enjoy having our "never login use only in case of emergency stuck in a super alt". I would happily live in an EVE where supers are mostly irrelevant to sov/null PvP and become the domain of people wanting to PvE in the absolute height of self-grandiosity. Nullbears are fine with AFK ratting carriers and ishtars, it's kinda funny to pretend the fate of supers should (or even could) be anything different.
|
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:05:37 -
[578] - Quote
Slowcats of the future right here |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
278
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:05:53 -
[579] - Quote
Re: Problem: Command Node - and a Successful Defense
It seems inherently unfair that if a Defender successfully defends their sov and captures the requisite command nodes - that they get ZERO break, and that the vulnerability is not delayed for the defender.
Their litterally forced to be under CTA conditions at all times every day - particularly every day a Main Event might get triggered - let alone the main event itself....
I thought the idea was to spread out Sov warfare...
Perhaps, if a defender is successfull in their defense they can be rewarded for the defense by getting an invlunerability bonus for a fixed period of time --- same of course for a successful attack.
That any counter attack is delayed - and a potential attacker/invader will have to reconsider their startegy or go after another constellation.
Why? Because Sov Trolls will totally become a thing, and a small group faking a sov take over every day day after day is beyond annoying...
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:10:20 -
[580] - Quote
Kaliba Mort wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote: If i held sov and someone brought in a carrier i'd be undocking dreads and hics.... forcing them to escalate further. Why? You can hold a carrier with a noob ship and a point. You can kill it with 20 interceptors. https://zkillboard.com/kills/capitals/ Maybe CCP should just scrap this and go back to POS warfare. At least those required *effort* to both attack and defend and there were strategies involved, like kitting RF timers. You know, it was actually fun.
Not sure if serious or just stupid... |
|
Noelt Daski
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:12:52 -
[581] - Quote
Brilliant, I like it.
Althought, I would recommand 8h zone instead of 4h. |
Callic Veratar
664
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:13:17 -
[582] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:Bubble immune 2-second align 250km locking 10mn MWD interceptors really are the bane of this new sov model. Except they won't be because a noobship can stop them from being effective. Maybe I shouldn't have trained Sarcasm V. People are really having a hard time detecting it. |
Virgil Armstrong
Alice In Wonderlands
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:13:19 -
[583] - Quote
First reactions,
- Perhaps the prime time should be corp based on not alliance based. This way an alliance can spread out different activities for all its members across timezones. At least this way, whole alliances won't because timezone based. unless that is your intention, having smaller powerblocks.
- Increase primetime by 1 hour when set across downtime.
- I'm not seeing what the bonus levels 1-5 actually mean. When do you get industry level 5?
|
Dradis Aulmais
RW Vindicator Connection Phoebe Freeport Republic
705
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:14:54 -
[584] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:I LOVE THIS, It's superb and eaven more hardcore that i have expected. Great work! Just few things 1. Etosis link should be banned on interceptors and any ship that can use covet-ops cloaks.To ensure to no abuse of this new module. Beside that, i love all of it; and I am sure it will shape null sec a lot! Making Providence an one Imposible to conquer Fort And KIlling all afk epires and bringing real, Skilled, completly out of hand, hard core pvp that every one allways wanted!! Again great work :D I was claping at the screan like a rearded child while reading this dev blog.
Why covert ops cloaks? Do you know how they work? You have to DROP cloak to get a lock.
CSM 10: Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Chance Ravinne, Jenshae chrioptera
Do No Vote For: Tora Bushido, Bobmon
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:15:00 -
[585] - Quote
Virgil Armstrong wrote:First reactions, - I'm not seeing what the bonus levels 1-5 actually mean. When do you get industry level 5?
The higher the indices (bonus levels), It takes longer to capture/hack/reinforce/verb the structure. |
Vesan Terakol
Capsuleer Outfitters Bad Intention
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:15:07 -
[586] - Quote
Fozzie, instead of typing out all of that, you could have just said:
"You'll be playing a game of point domination with a repainted HIC infinipoint. Oh, and we really liked that prime time vulnerability window from DUST - you get that too. And make sure you mine all that veld!"
I was expecting something more radical TBH, considering all the hype, but i guess you really don't need anything more complicated than that. Looks solid. |
DaReaper
Net 7
1817
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:15:54 -
[587] - Quote
For everyone asking about a reason to fight or why, this blog is mearly about how you will fight. I assume, why, and what benifit will be something else entirely. As i said a few pages back, CCP must address the income of null and make it so that large alliances will be willing to reduce space because they can get all they need in a single constalation or region, and the line men can easily make the money they need without hs alts. I assume, thats coming.. but should be part of phase 2. Makes em wonder what phase 3 is, i would of thought this income fix would be phase 2, but whatever.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:22:18 -
[588] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:I'm really confused. So, if the defensive window is not during your availability you have nothing to do and if it is during your availability you can't do anything else.
So... living in nullsec means you spend all your time defending sov and that's it?
I don't think so, because Entosis links keep your from warping of AND you need to stay in target range to keep the timer running. So you don't need a point to fight an aggressor and at the same time the Entosis Link is high slot utility, so fitting it on your average PvE ship is not too big of a hassle. Even if you can't catch the lone interceptor in your PvE Ship, you still can stop the timer and wait for someone with smaller guns to kill the ceptor. And if the agressor is not only trolling, but bringing serious oomph, all the more reason to be happy and go fight.
But yeah, in order to keep SOV, you actually have to keep a certain amount of people around, willing to defend it. Same story as with POSes. |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
296
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:23:00 -
[589] - Quote
Just to add something instead off all the whine. I think it would be wise to let players designate a 'Constellation Capital'. This system and all structures in it can only be attacked if more than half of the constellation is not under control as the same alliance that controls the Capital system.
You will want to give some defensive measures to the people making use of their space by Industry and all the capital and assets that industry needs, as no one in their right minds will invest anything in a station that can be taken over with welping a fleet to bombers at 1 timer. as the 'Freeport' idea is only beneficial to attackers and messes up defensive players.
Headshotting alliances will never be more easy.
Baddest poster ever
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
286
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:23:34 -
[590] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:A group that really wants your sov will bring carriers ... now you've got carriers on grid for dps or logi .. either way now you bring dreads to the party and triage of your own. Next they will escalate with supers and it's time to put that titan on the field. Battles where large groups are determined to gain that sov will still escalate to large battles.
Except while this fleet is duking it out over system A, the attacker sends 4 other fleets to flip sov in B thru E. Because they don't need DPS fleets and don't need to commit supers to these probes, they just need something that can fit an E-link and defend it. So now defender has to send smaller fleets to defend B thru E. And each of those fights has a chance of escalating too. And eventually attacker and defender run out of pilots and escalating forces and instead of one fight with 4000 people in system A, it's 5 fights with 800 people in each of system A thru E.
True, it will turn into giant TiDi cap blob if the attacker is trying to take the LAST and ONLY sov system from the defender. But otherwise it drastically encourages the attacker to make multi-pronged assaults because they DON'T need to commit caps and supers to each prong until and unless things begin to escalate in order to have a realistic chance of succeeding (since overwhelming DPS is not required).
This likewise forces the defender to actually defend these multi-prong assaults NOW, not later. You can't just ignore it because you know the HP on the defending structure will buy you hours and hours of time. And you can't just let them fall and say "meh when these come out of reinforce we'll just drop our overwhelming super fleet to defend it later". Because that will no longer be a viable tactic because of the command node CTF game. |
|
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
293
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:23:42 -
[591] - Quote
Alexei Stryker wrote:I think ... Its a bit too complicated... I have to read it 2 times to understand the rules
Try to explain trading to someone, and even after 6 to 8 times they still dont get it. Get used to the complexity that is EVE.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10019
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:24:58 -
[592] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Brilliant, love it. ****'s gonna burn.
lol, that's what they said...right before Dominion.
I've got a spare 100 mil lying around, who wants to bet that this overly convoluted new Sov system with too many moving parts ends up making things worse rather than better in the same way Dominon did (remember ,Dominion was 'supposed to give people a reason to fight' and give people 'small gang objectives' but resulted in more blobbing)?
IMHO The problem isn't the sov system, it's the existence of and the very idea of sov in the 1st place.
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
84
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:26:04 -
[593] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:JustSharkbait wrote:Overall, I am excited by this proposal. I think it is a step in the right direction. However, the immediate point of concern i see is the prime time feature. I like it for what it is, but am concerned on how that will effect the many alliances that have multiple timezones. It seems like only one TZ will get to have all the fun defensively.
The only overall concern i have is just to actually make having the SOV worth it as right now even taking away structure grinding does not add any great desire to have space. Alliance level money still comes from moons and renters so how will this help change that? It won't. It's another myopic attempt by CCP to pacify new players and high sec bears.
Says the guy who is unable to find a reason to fight in null or make money without R32's or R64's. |
Agent Known
Night Theifs DamnedNation
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:26:36 -
[594] - Quote
I'm not sure why people think interceptors or tactical destroyers will be untouchable with an oversized MWD ...as it is, it's impossible to fit a 10mn MWD on a inty at all without a full rack of APUs and an oversized AB doesn't do anything spectacular to their speed....plus, even with a rack of sensor boosters and amps you can't even get close to 200km lock range even with max skills.
The svipul you can get close, but not close enough to avoid being blapped by a well-timed shot from someone who can predict your orbit pattern. |
Zanquis
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:28:31 -
[595] - Quote
Interesting idea and I look forward to seeing it in action. Some few design things and commentary though..
Design Features that need more clarity or might not work
- When a structure exits reinforced at its chosen time, it could fall towards the end of its natural vulnerability period. If a structure comes out of reinforced towards the end of the chosen prime time period, will they become invulnerable once prime time ends? Or does a structure's exit from reinforced have a enforced period of vulnerability for four hours?
- You had mentioned that an alert is only sent to the defenders at the end of the first cycle of the EL's activation. Combined with the statement that T1 units have longer cycle times, this could end as a benefit to use T1 units. With capitals and T1 links having very long timers, you could potentially find the target captured before the first cycle ends triggering the warning in some cases, or with very little time being given to the defenders to respond in others if the EL cycle time fell slightly short. This mechanic should be reviewed since it would be https://forums.eveonline.com/themes/ccpEveOnline/pix-trans.pnga benefit rather then a penalty the way you currently have this designed.
- TCU's look kinda like a forgotten structure in the mix with little value. Please consider enhancing it's ability to give information to the defenders in the same way it gives warnings. For example you could have command nodes show up on the map for systems where you have an active TCU, and perhaps the first warning for any hostile EL activation against your structure could come within 2 minutes regardless of cycle time.
Notable and Disapointing Ommitions from the new System
A sov system change had the opportunity to embrace and possibly enhance the usefulness of planets. More options are needed to encourage "settlement" in a system. People need to be tied to something to make them care, and that is generally relative to the investment they had placed within. Let players 'build' up areas.
I suggest the following
- Create a system that allows you to populate, educate, and make a planet prosper
- Planets with a population should have loyalty that is earned through investment in the above
- Planets should create new cultures that are given a name once they reach significance in population
- Captured planets need to have populations surpressed until you can earn their loyalty
- Main resource from planets should be population in addition to their resources
- Population levels can be attained to get local agents for that faction
- Passive defense modules in the system, and other major sov structures can be tied to population instead. (Ie. They are manned, and thus your limited by your manpower)
- Population can provide benefits for PI
- Population can provide benefits for Industry Jobs (manufacturing, invention, research, etc)
- You can possibly allow for unique results for industry in areas with a thriving educated population
- If you reach a level with a high population level and economy, you could perhaps be able to create special trade hubs where you can benefit from sales tax revenues as an alliance. Trade hubs can also gain access to market seeding for items that players cannot build (skill books, some bpo's)
- Can enable the creation of a government and faction police in controlled systems who must be provided fighters/bombers/ships and use manpower. The government would allow you to enact laws that govern a controlled system which can be enforced by the navy. These laws apply to all inhabitants equally. Such as a no aggression law using concord rules of engagement. These ships are specially built, strong, and can be destroyed. They must be manually replaced by the alliance if destroyed. They do NOT get involved in capsuler wars.
- Make the use of planets contribute to the system occupancy factor (with changes to add active options that can be measured)
- Encourage players to build planet populations, economy, infastructre.
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1161
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:28:39 -
[596] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Soldarius wrote: In this new system, even if 1000 titans came to defend, not one of them will be able to rep up the renter alliance's structures. The options are to shoot the attackers or annex the sov structure. I'm intensely curious to see how landlord alliances change their rental schemes to adapt to this new system.
pay us or we'll take your sov
Its already like that.
...
I see your point.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:29:01 -
[597] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:Total Newbie wrote:JustSharkbait wrote:Overall, I am excited by this proposal. I think it is a step in the right direction. However, the immediate point of concern i see is the prime time feature. I like it for what it is, but am concerned on how that will effect the many alliances that have multiple timezones. It seems like only one TZ will get to have all the fun defensively.
The only overall concern i have is just to actually make having the SOV worth it as right now even taking away structure grinding does not add any great desire to have space. Alliance level money still comes from moons and renters so how will this help change that? It won't. It's another myopic attempt by CCP to pacify new players and high sec bears. Says the guy who is unable to find a reason to fight in null or make money without R32's or R64's. Sorry bud but derping around in T1 frigates isnt fighting |
Chaddington
Hounds of War. Hashashin Cartel
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:29:01 -
[598] - Quote
I love these changes as a whole, coming from a small/mid sized alliance point of view these changes should make holding sov an attainable goal for a group like us, which is very cool.
I agree with a few issues that have been pointed out though, the 4 hour window of activity is very narrow which could limit the action that off-peak timezones will be able to take part in. Could we set vulnerability windows to be unique per constellation? Or increase the window if we so decide?
I also like the idea of controlling what can actually use the Entosis Links, perhaps through high fitting requirements/role requirements. I think sov holders could be trolled hard by random frigs who put themselves in little to no danger while reinforcing your sov structures. While i do think a group that controls sov should be able to handle a single frig I also think the attacker should have some risk involved. Yes we can halt the attackers progression with a single frig of our own but that sounds like more of a headache than interesting gameplay. |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:30:00 -
[599] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:Consider me a high-sec carebear, and feel free to treat my opinion as worthless, but what I'm seeing is:
1. Any roaming gang will entosis whatever they can while they roam, and eventually the defender's list of sov units that must be defended will include all of them. Turning the 4 hours "prime time" into "mandatory home defense time for 4 hours." You're presenting the dev blog from the point of view of one attacker and one defender, when in reality it's more like posting something controversial in General Discussion and then having to defend your views against the entire playerbase. I wonder how fun it will be having to counter-entosis all the potshots, every day.
2. Eventually, the system will be: If you want to mine, PVE, or go roaming in enemy space, you must do it at non-prime hours, because prime time is for home defense (and besides, enemy isn't vulnerable in your prime anyway). This does give pilots from other time zones something to do.
3. Bye bye capitals.
Exactly. A bit like putting the cart before the horse eh?
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:30:48 -
[600] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Their litterally forced to be under CTA conditions at all times every day - particularly every day a Main Event might get triggered - let alone the main event itself....
ZOMG I NEED TO LOG TO PROTECT MY SOV !!!!
OMG CCP I ******* LOVE YOU AND YOUR FU... BAT, WE WILL BURN THEM TO THE GROUUUUUUND |
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
129
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:30:58 -
[601] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:I'm going to say I'm somewhat disappointed, but I shall return to comment after I go throw up.
OMG CCP PLZ CHANGE, WE CAN"T GRIND IT NO MORE.
OMFG CCP YOU CHNAGE SOME THING< OMFG WE WILL UNSUB WIP WIP WIP (Bucket of Tears wil overflow)
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:30:59 -
[602] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:A group that really wants your sov will bring carriers ... now you've got carriers on grid for dps or logi .. either way now you bring dreads to the party and triage of your own. Next they will escalate with supers and it's time to put that titan on the field. Battles where large groups are determined to gain that sov will still escalate to large battles. Except while this fleet is duking it out over system A, the attacker sends 4 other fleets to flip sov in B thru E. Because they don't need DPS fleets and don't need to commit supers to these probes, they just need something that can fit an E-link and defend it. So now defender has to send smaller fleets to defend B thru E. And each of those fights has a chance of escalating too. And eventually attacker and defender run out of pilots and escalating forces and instead of one fight with 4000 people in system A, it's 5 fights with 800 people in each of system A thru E. True, it will turn into giant TiDi cap blob if the attacker is trying to take the LAST and ONLY sov system from the defender. But otherwise it drastically encourages the attacker to make multi-pronged assaults because they DON'T need to commit caps and supers to each prong until and unless things begin to escalate in order to have a realistic chance of succeeding (since overwhelming DPS is not required). This likewise forces the defender to actually defend these multi-prong assaults NOW, not later. You can't just ignore it because you know the HP on the defending structure will buy you hours and hours of time. And you can't just let them fall and say "meh when these come out of reinforce we'll just drop our overwhelming super fleet to defend it later". Because that will no longer be a viable tactic because of the command node CTF game.
I think thats part of the goal. Doesn't 5 800man fights running simultaneously provides a higher degree of difficulty and fun. New tactics will be employed, new fits probably with warp speed rigs will become mainstream ... this is combat evolution right here! The 4000man blob fight is the way of the bittervet. Times are changing and I'm looking forward to it! |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:31:09 -
[603] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:Total Newbie wrote:JustSharkbait wrote:Overall, I am excited by this proposal. I think it is a step in the right direction. However, the immediate point of concern i see is the prime time feature. I like it for what it is, but am concerned on how that will effect the many alliances that have multiple timezones. It seems like only one TZ will get to have all the fun defensively.
The only overall concern i have is just to actually make having the SOV worth it as right now even taking away structure grinding does not add any great desire to have space. Alliance level money still comes from moons and renters so how will this help change that? It won't. It's another myopic attempt by CCP to pacify new players and high sec bears. Says the guy who is unable to find a reason to fight in null or make money without R32's or R64's. Making it harder to hold extra space is going to force sprawled out alliances to contract, and let go of some money moons. With less income, their members will have to be more responsible about spending isk and SRP may eventually go down. On the whole I can't see that being a bad thing.
The bitter in you, being in Test is understandable. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
290
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:31:52 -
[604] - Quote
Illindar Tyrannus wrote:So the concept of Timezone is terrible as many people have said before not only does it make section of space perfectly safe for the majority of the day but then creates a situation where alliances in different timezone cannot meaningfully interact with each other without alarm clocking. Please don't do this!
You are asking CCP to fix an unfixable problem.
Alliances in different TZs cannot meaningfully interact with each other because they aren't online at the same time, not because of anything CCP is or is not doing. Period.
In a game where fun boils down to "interacting against other people in real time", there is basically no way around this. CCP is finally just introducing a mechanic that accepts this basic reality. They cannot magically make AI proxies for the other alliance to play in your TZ to enable your fun. Find people to have fun with that are online roughly when you are.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2060
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:32:23 -
[605] - Quote
Okay read the blog. About occupancy and congestion is there any plan to add missions to stations? Maybe make it a lev iv thing if you have ihub and tcu... that will make actually living in the system worth it because as it stands high sec missioning is still better isk per tick.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MuppetsSlayed
Great White North Productions Northern Associates.
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:32:31 -
[606] - Quote
The new simpler system that everyone can understand and apparently automatically knows what they should be doing and when takes 20 pages to explain?
There are good ideas here and some bad ones.
Why make the T2 module 10 times better than the T1 module. Surely this is the opposite of what your trying to achieve with tiericide. Why would anyone use the T1? |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:32:58 -
[607] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Brilliant, love it. ****'s gonna burn. lol, that's what they said...right before Dominion. I've got a spare 100 mil lying around, who wants to bet that this overly convoluted new Sov system with too many moving parts ends up making things worse rather than better in the same way Dominon did (remember ,Dominion was 'supposed to give people a reason to fight' and give people 'small gang objectives' but resulted in more blobbing)? IMHO The problem isn't the sov system, it's the existence of and the very idea of sov in the 1st place.
Systems and interactions can be and often are problems. The base problem however remains the simple fact that EVE's functionality (and past growth) rests on the shoulders of human group behaviour. It's why volume beats all, why economics of scale and power creep are preset to get out of hand, plenty examples to find over the years - each predicted, each resulting in unwanted consequences.
So there's an immersive environment rooted in group behaviour, for a company which has to tweak that towards a sustainable low maintenance low feature cost future that presents a big problem. CCP's solution is to capture that problem within a strictly mechanical approach towards solutions. They do take individual behaviour of types into account, but while they think they deal with group behaviour they in fact only deal with group dynamics - and there's subtle but important differences.
Which is why we end up with a model which is scalable and extensible, but which still rests on the shoulders of CCP's resource allocation without first validating premises for the - let's be honest - madness of human groups.
|
Winter Archipelago
Furtherance.
349
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:32:59 -
[608] - Quote
I suppose if the super-fast, super-agile, super-long-target-range ships of legend ever became an issue, it would be possible to make three versions of the Entropic module, with the battleship-sized module taking the least time, then doubling as it went down to the medium ships, and doubling again into the small ships, with a lore reason being that "more electronics can be fit into the larger modules to do the job" or some such.
Even so, small ships scooting along at distant ranges have low angular, and would be quite vulnerable to sniping ships sitting at zero on the structure, one of whom will probably have a link of their own, thus negating the entire effort of the attacker.
Regardless, as a resident of Thera, I look forward to causing a bit of chaos with the many backwater nullsec connections we get. Wormholes in general will probably become a thing of terror for a lot of nullsec entities as they open up behind their lines, where their intel may be a bit more lax.
Ransoms are accepted in Isk, Mods, Ships, and Dolls.
|
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:33:08 -
[609] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Two step wrote:Suggestions for addressing the timezone issues:
1) Expand the window to 8 hours 2) If you pick a 4 hour window, you also get a 2 hour window 10 hours from the end of your chosen window. This would mean that a US TZ window would have an opposite time that would be RUS friendly and an EU window would have AUS friendly times. this system is already hilariously biased in favor of the attacker, what would make you think they need more
so everyone is inclusive in attacking the goon structure. don't be a meeny selfish bee and leave out other peeps to play, that wont be fain now :p |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1474
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:33:34 -
[610] - Quote
I'm not in a position to judge the overall effectiveness of the system, so I'll just give props for a bold move.
My last alliance was about 20 people, and we still managed to cover two time zones (EU and US), with peak activity in late-EU early-US. So we could theoretically cover one or two TZs, but we wouldn't want to either-or. If it's a problem for an alliance of 20 people, maybe it's a problem. So, what if you introduced coalitions as a formal mechanic, but as a way of encouraging density instead of sprawl: a coalition is a group of alliances that hold sov in the same space, but with different prime times. (Alternately, you could let multiple corps within an alliance claim sov, and have the alliance be the unifying mechanic).
I loved the question that Rowells(?) asked about capsuleers in NPC corps using the new sov lasers: maybe when they do, they're always working in favor of turning away from sov and toward freeport status. They could burn down unused sov without claiming it for anyone, and turn unused stations into freeports.
The 250km range on the T2 sov laser seems kind of silly: maybe they could have falloff, which increases the amount of time to capture from the base time when in optimal range?
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
|
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:35:17 -
[611] - Quote
Anton Menges Saddat wrote: I am also envisioning troll fleets of slippery entosis interceptors. Interceptors are already annoying enough with their bubble immunity, this is just going to make it even worse.
No, cause Entosis links are BY FAR the most pricey T1/T2 module, you can put on a subcap. 20 Million for the T1 almost doubles the price of your ceptor AND ties you down for 5 minutes, which is an awful long time, for something as squishy as a ceptor.
Buying the T2 version for increased range and faster cycle time, greatly benefits a ceptor but at 80 Million its not cheaps either. I don't see people doing suicide ganks or other "just for LOLz" stuff in faction frigs either, since that would be the price point of a ceppy with T2 Entosis.
The only possible exploit that I can see is if a ship stays right at the edge of targeting range AND the Entosis link would work in such a way, that it would immediately abort and allow warp, once it is out of range.
Devs: please make sure, that an Entosis Link completes it cycle (including all negative effects) no matter what. Otherwise at lot of stupid, riskless harassment becomes possible, both ceptors and cloakys could spam Entosis alerts and just warp off/cloak up as soon as someone appears on grid. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
280
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:35:39 -
[612] - Quote
REALLY IMPORTANT:
Entosis Link should trigger alert IMMEDIATELY - not after a 10 Minute delay when the damage is already done!!!!
*(Please like this post so Dev's will clearly see this)
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2060
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:36:39 -
[613] - Quote
MuppetsSlayed wrote:The new simpler system that everyone can understand and apparently automatically knows what they should be doing and when takes 20 pages to explain?
There are good ideas here and some bad ones.
Why make the T2 module 10 times better than the T1 module. Surely this is the opposite of what your trying to achieve with tiericide. Why would anyone use the T1?
I would still use a tech i. Lets say roaming in a frig gang i dont want a mod that costs more than the fleet. just because you dont see the use does not mean there is no use
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Agent Known
Night Theifs DamnedNation
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:36:58 -
[614] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:REALLY IMPORTANT:
Entosis Link should trigger alert IMMEDIATELY - not after a 10 Minute delay when the damage is already done!!!!
*(Please like this post so Dev's will clearly see this)
If you're actively using the system they're contesting then intel channels would tell you well before they got to the structures anyway. |
yogizh
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:37:11 -
[615] - Quote
Sieonigh wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Two step wrote:Suggestions for addressing the timezone issues:
1) Expand the window to 8 hours 2) If you pick a 4 hour window, you also get a 2 hour window 10 hours from the end of your chosen window. This would mean that a US TZ window would have an opposite time that would be RUS friendly and an EU window would have AUS friendly times. this system is already hilariously biased in favor of the attacker, what would make you think they need more so everyone is inclusive in attacking the goon structure. don't be a meeny selfish bee and leave out other peeps to play, that wont be fain now :p
By playing you mean cloaky camping or gate camping ? Maybe we should move entire CFC to Serpentis Prime and laugh at you trying to take sov, while grinding those sweet missions. GRRR GOONS right ?
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1161
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:38:08 -
[616] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:X Gallentius wrote:xartin wrote:gment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.
Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.
UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.
How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly. BECAUSE OMG IT'S DIFFERENT AND HARD AND CCP ARE KILLING MY PLAYSTYLE AND MAKING SOV WORTHLESS!!!!! No, sov is largerly worthless already, only thing the vast majority of buffer zones allow you to do is get an early warning that a Random Legion is knocking on your door. Then again, I'm sure Test could live in a region full of -0.05's just because it's sov.
Could? http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Catch#sec
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Agent Known
Night Theifs DamnedNation
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:38:11 -
[617] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:MuppetsSlayed wrote:The new simpler system that everyone can understand and apparently automatically knows what they should be doing and when takes 20 pages to explain?
There are good ideas here and some bad ones.
Why make the T2 module 10 times better than the T1 module. Surely this is the opposite of what your trying to achieve with tiericide. Why would anyone use the T1? I would still use a tech i. Lets say roaming in a frig gang i dont want a mod that costs more than the fleet. just because you dont see the use does not mean there is no use
They also haven't released the fitting requirements for the module yet. If they follow the normal pattern of T2 being harder to fit, I'm not disregarding the fact that T2 will be unfittable on small ships (like ceptors). |
Jacus Noir
Accretion Aftermath Headshot Gaming
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:38:26 -
[618] - Quote
hmm "Prime Time" goes a bit like this, Alliance mail goes out reading:
CTA Everyone! Structures are going vulnerable in 1 hour, drop what you are doing, come hug the station and defend the system from attack...btw we get to do this every day of the week same time, so get used to stopping what you are doing and not enjoying the "sandbox" and get used to playing king of the hill.
I mean seriously CCP...the current system is miles better than this, are you TRYING to push people back into low sec? I mean Im sorry but these changes are absolute garbage, you guys really need to go back to the drawing board and take a look at this because this is very labor intensive and having to do it every single flipping day is madding enough for someone to go, eh not worth it just go back to low sec where I can fight instead of having to baby sit my station every 20 hours. |
Agent Known
Night Theifs DamnedNation
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:39:43 -
[619] - Quote
Jacus Noir wrote:hmm "Prime Time" goes a bit like this, Alliance mail goes out reading:
CTA Everyone! Structures are going vulnerable in 1 hour, drop what you are doing, come hug the station and defend the system from attack...btw we get to do this every day of the week same time, so get used to stopping what you are doing and not enjoying the "sandbox" and get used to playing king of the hill.
I mean seriously CCP...the current system is miles better than this, are you TRYING to push people back into low sec? I mean Im sorry but these changes are absolute garbage, you guys really need to go back to the drawing board and take a look at this because this is very labor intensive and having to do it every single flipping day is madding enough for someone to go, eh not worth it just go back to low sec where I can fight instead of having to baby sit my station every 20 hours.
If you want your own little piece of New Eden, you have to fight for it. Pretty simple. No longer can half your alliance fool around in other parts of the universe knowing full well that all their systems are perfectly safe until almost a week of timers pass. |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:39:48 -
[620] - Quote
NPC Null Just became the New Sov. Massive occupations, safe place to launch griefing operations..... all the fights will be about moons, not sov anyway. |
|
Demetri Dentrov
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:39:59 -
[621] - Quote
huh. Ok.
So, what's to stop the largest alliances from simply synchronizing their vulnerability windows? Perhaps I don't fully understand the system (Only read it once. Didn't scribble stuff on scratch paper like I usually do...) but wouldn't syncing the vulnerability window create a sort of "Mutually Assured Destruction" scenario that neither alliance would dare to breach?
If you need all your forces to defend during a window, then you cannot use those forces to attack during the same window. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3114
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:41:07 -
[622] - Quote
The one saving grace of your dumb interceptor changes a couple of patches back was that they were merely useful in harrassment and at least you couldn't really do anything strategic with them.
But with this? Welcome to the age of the Entoseptor.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Alexis Nightwish
112
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:41:24 -
[623] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We know that when changing a system as complex and competitive as Nullsec Sovereignty, it is very important to provide adequate time to incorporate feedback and get the changes right. We have been discussing these designs in detail with the Council of Stellar Management for a little over a month now and we are releasing these dev blogs early so that we can get the crucial public feedback process started as soon as possible. You say this, but what you will actually do is what you always do: you'll come up with a 'solution' (may be good, may be bad) and you'll decide you're doing that. THEN you'll ask for feedback, and based on that you might tweak it a bit and call that "listening to player feedback".
If you actually wanted our feedback you'd tell us what you're thinking about doing before you start coding it. Players would point out its flaws and its benefits, and then we work together to improve it (after all we, CCP and the players, are after the same goal). Then once you get a nice, refined solution you start coding it.
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:41:26 -
[624] - Quote
Jacus Noir wrote:hmm "Prime Time" goes a bit like this, Alliance mail goes out reading:
CTA Everyone! Structures are going vulnerable in 1 hour, drop what you are doing, come hug the station and defend the system from attack...btw we get to do this every day of the week same time, so get used to stopping what you are doing and not enjoying the "sandbox" and get used to playing king of the hill.
I mean seriously CCP...the current system is miles better than this, are you TRYING to push people back into low sec? I mean Im sorry but these changes are absolute garbage, you guys really need to go back to the drawing board and take a look at this because this is very labor intensive and having to do it every single flipping day is madding enough for someone to go, eh not worth it just go back to low sec where I can fight instead of having to baby sit my station every 20 hours.
Babysitting your station is the entire point. Do your work in and near your home system so that if someone comes you can defend it. With this mechanic the fights will come to you. You want to own space you gotta be there to protect it. |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:42:05 -
[625] - Quote
Agent Known wrote:Jacus Noir wrote:hmm "Prime Time" goes a bit like this, Alliance mail goes out reading:
CTA Everyone! Structures are going vulnerable in 1 hour, drop what you are doing, come hug the station and defend the system from attack...btw we get to do this every day of the week same time, so get used to stopping what you are doing and not enjoying the "sandbox" and get used to playing king of the hill.
I mean seriously CCP...the current system is miles better than this, are you TRYING to push people back into low sec? I mean Im sorry but these changes are absolute garbage, you guys really need to go back to the drawing board and take a look at this because this is very labor intensive and having to do it every single flipping day is madding enough for someone to go, eh not worth it just go back to low sec where I can fight instead of having to baby sit my station every 20 hours. If you want your own little piece of New Eden, you have to fight for it. Pretty simple. No longer can half your alliance fool around in other parts of the universe knowing full well that all their systems are perfectly safe until almost a week of timers pass.
That's why you are CURRENTLY in Null doing that, right?
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
661
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:42:31 -
[626] - Quote
I keep hearing how bad nullsec is, then a Nulli guys says its so bad he rents it out to people who pay them vast rent and presumbaly make ISK out of it, otherwise they would not be there. The contradictions are huge, why would they rent space if they could not make ISK out of it.
I was part of an alliance that rented space from Atlas, 4 truly bad truesec systems in Querious for 1bn rent each system per month, when Atlas hadd been ordered back to Stain by -A-, it was when CCP had destroyed low truesec income and yet my alliance stood our ground when the Goons and their allies did their freeport Delve idea and still made ISK out of it.
It just takes bottle and effort.
All you whining people about null sec is too bad, if I had even the poorest nullsec system, I could make ISK out of it.
I have read though this now a couple of times and I like it.
People are going on about the 4 hour TZ issue, but the issue is that most small entities are collected into one main TZ, so it has to be this way. Lets take the Goons as an example they have full TZ coverage, the EU and US is pretty much the same, the AU TZ is also the biggest in game at this point. If they chose to defend in US TZ there is overlap and of course those other TZ's could go and counter attack. If you want to have differeing TZ's for different systems you could do it to share the load. Stop being so damn negative.
I think it is well worked out and will develop more small fleet combat and smaller groups going after poor space and trying to defend it because with this you can just keep at it, you have the chance to get and hold space through sheer determination not just through the size of your titan fleet and yet those big battles will still happen because people like to blow up shinies.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Trii Seo
712
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:42:47 -
[627] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: Why? Because Sov Trolls will totally become a thing, and a small group faking a sov take over every day day after day is beyond annoying...
Sov trolls exist today. Sometimes they show up in one place to ping a station, drop an SBU to irritate the owner... but it's rarely severe. With the new system, sov trolling would become easy.
"It's a good thing!" You may say. "That will force those nullbears out of their hiding caves so I can easily pad my killboard!"
No. It won't.
Point one: "Nullbears" will either let you reinforce the system, and blob you if you show up for the RF timer, or if they have the numbers just undock and blob you.
Point two: There will be no "Nullbears".
A "Carebear" populace that becomes natural prey and attracts predators (and by extent, bigger fish that would hunt them, sparking fights) requires a stable, profitable environment. A concept discussed long ago as "Farms and fields". The system proposed is not farms and fields. This is a prelude to a FW consequence-less pingpong where you hold sov for the sake of holding sov.
Moreover, this will not award 0.0 to the most skilled, competent pvp alliances. This, as any complex system, will put on the map those who can game the system the best to their favour. Combined with the fact that there's very little incentive to hold sov in the first place, will leave the situation as-is:
- Those who game the system best hold the most space, likely using renters to keep the defensive indices up. - Other groups exist on the fringe picking at renters but running from the larger group, scoring big kills but never truly competing for sovereignity. If said entity grows big enough, it will prod the larger group to get a fight but, once more, never dispute sov.
And so, everything returns to normal. Except for I guess a change in seats in a few places.
Given I'm feeling particularily posty today, let's get a bit epic:
The spirit of sov is that of profit, high-level machinations and decisions made at meta level in smoke filled rooms. The spirit of sov is that of bloody, no-holds-barred war filled with propaganda. A bloody campaign that ends leaves you with tales of blowing up spaceships with your spacefriends, participating in battles small and large.
The underlying system may be complex or simple. It may be "Control 50%+ of the system POS coverage", it may be "Drop SBUs then grind timer 1 2...n". What it needs, and absolutely requires, is a reason to launch a war.
Give the people a reason first. Then you will see that they will hop through the hoops of even the old system to claim what they want. Then **** will burn.
This has been the 0.01ISK of a perpetually drunken irrelevant grunt of an irrelevant alliance full of obvious 'nullbears', Who probably earns less than an incursion runner but would even pay to fight once more a war that matters, And is of firm belief that the current system sucks.
Viva la revolution!
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1111
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:43:33 -
[628] - Quote
I thought 4 hour window would be too short and considered a 6 hour window instead, then thought, wow 6 hours is a lot to be online guarding a system, and reverted back to 4 hours.
There is not a lot to worry about with this. Damn you are addressing this positively.
Yaay!!!!
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
292
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:43:40 -
[629] - Quote
MuppetsSlayed wrote:Why make the T2 module 10 times better than the T1 module. Surely this is the opposite of what your trying to achieve with tiericide. Why would anyone use the T1?
The T1 is basically a defender advantage. Fire up what will (presumably be) a couple of low skilled alts, sit them in a brick-tanked cruiser (I forsee Mallers everywhere!) with a T1 E-link, and park it with a fleet or some reps at 0 on the station/structure. You are now basically invulnerable to the shenanigans of a roaming gang of T2 E-link vandals flying around in inty's or T3 dessies trying to flip things from 250k away.
However, if you can't even be bothered to bring a low skilled T1 E-link alt to defend the structure, then those vandal gangs get to harass with T2 E-links from range.
EDIT: That said, I prefer making E-links a BS-only thing. And then maybe give black ops BS a role bonus that extends range of E-links for them, so they can still do the ranged harassment thing. Which seems like a really fun possible role extension for black ops, actually... |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1161
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:45:27 -
[630] - Quote
Brakoo wrote:If we are going to have the military and industry indexes matter for the "occupancy" bonus I would like to see the way they are measured overhauled.
The Industry Index needs to include PI, Industry jobs run, and maybe even moon mining/reactions done in those systems to truly reflect usage.
The Military Index on that same note should include some kind of pilots in space metric, maybe Isk value of PVP ship kills or something along those lines.
In their current state the occupancy bonuses will just encourage compulsory PVE ops to increase defense levels.
This seems like a really good idea. Include the industry cost indices in the Industry sov index. Include pvp stats in the military sov index.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
|
Sylvanium Orlenard
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:45:33 -
[631] - Quote
I've read like the first 6 pages of comments. And one of the prevailing comments was "Where is the bonus / incentive for owning sov?" Now I've never actually been a sov resident but please enlighten me. If there are no incentives to hold sov currently, why are there any systems in EVE that are currently being held by an alliance or an other? For that matter why is renting null systems a thing? I mean there are no incentives to holding sov right now is there? |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
98
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:45:56 -
[632] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:I suppose if the super-fast, super-agile, super-long-target-range ships of legend ever became an issue, it would be possible to make three versions of the Entropic module, with the battleship-sized module taking the least time, then doubling as it went down to the medium ships, and doubling again into the small ships, with a lore reason being that "more electronics can be fit into the larger modules to do the job" or some such. No need for extra modules
EWAR - Gallente sensor damps or Caldari ECM.
Can't kite and hack if you can't lock it anymore from your 250km orbit. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
426
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:47:09 -
[633] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Also regarding Command Node(s) and capture:
Re: Adding the need to scan down Command nodes:
Which equals diversity in game play.
If we're removing grinding then something has to be hard... right now it's attacker advantage the way populated Sov is currently used... i.e. BLOB warps in suddenly to system and griefs station by reinforcing everything services wise
Defender is at disadvantage because it's suprise attack, and the time to organize a defense ---
When it comes to actual Sov capture there isn't a decisive advantage for defender over attacker, which is fine, but once the command nodes start popping it's just a race to see who can come across the anomoly first
It would be nicer if some sill was involved of actually having to scan the things down instead of attacker just pre posiition in "spotters" in every constellation system and then via comms deploy the fleet
____________
I mean I much rather have my Alliance leadership promoting scanner pilots as the saviours of our Empire, rather than the BLOB F1 monkey that only trained PVP skills
Envisioning FC's waiting for scanner results via scanner pilots, as well as scouts racing around updating on enemy activity (sharp uptick in local? or sudden cyno out ... where'd they cyno too)... having to manage the Meta, as opposed to how to get the BLOB to the next Command Node that's on everyone's overview
I think exploration/scanning has come of age and needs additional content - and this is a perfect content driver that would give that genre the next opportunity to make headway in the EVE online ingame culture.
*(And for the record I myself am not a scanner pilot - all skills are only at Lvl 2 for this character)
As an ex-wormhole prober, I find this idea great- racing to the new static was a thrill. However, the sig should actually be hard to scan.
|
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:48:35 -
[634] - Quote
Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:I've read like the first 6 pages of comments. And one of the prevailing comments was "Where is the bonus / incentive for owning sov?" Now I've never actually been a sov resident but please enlighten me. If there are no incentives to hold sov currently, why are there any systems in EVE that are currently being held by an alliance or an other? For that matter why is renting null systems a thing? I mean there are no incentives to holding sov right now is there? Docking |
O'nira
13. Enigma Project
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:49:03 -
[635] - Quote
This seems like an excellent change, big props to ccp for bringing change into the stagnant nullsec |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2060
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:49:51 -
[636] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:I'm going to say I'm somewhat disappointed, but I shall return to comment after I go throw up.
Cool cus now the gsf will have to tighten its belt... glad you are being proactive on the weight loss
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2819
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:50:00 -
[637] - Quote
Jacus Noir wrote:hmm "Prime Time" goes a bit like this, Alliance mail goes out reading:
CTA Everyone! Structures are going vulnerable in 1 hour, drop what you are doing, come hug the station and defend the system from attack...btw we get to do this every day of the week same time, so get used to stopping what you are doing and not enjoying the "sandbox" and get used to playing king of the hill.
dev blog wrote:Then Sovereignty structures exit their reinforcement period approximately 48 hours after the initial attack, they spark the beginning of a new capture event in which players fight over Command Node anomalies that spawn at random points throughout the constellation. First, it's not "every single day." (maybe it is, see question below)
Second, you can petition CCP to adjust the timer during this feedback period. If you want to be lazy then make the reinforcement period 1 week. If you want to kick the alliance in the balls, then make it during the next available window.
Third, if there's no real attack in an active system, then it's really easy to defend. Just have 5 dudes run their systems for 10 minutes (or whatever) since the timers will be 4x faster than baseline.
Question: Is there a way for the reinforcement timer in a different system within the same constellation to be reinforced each day - making it a daily sov grind thing?
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
suicide
The Exit Plan Test Alliance Please Ignore
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:50:03 -
[638] - Quote
After some thought, one suggestion:
Perhaps some systems can be timed differently than the "Alliance Primetime". This will help distribute fights across timezones in a way that doesn't encourage people literally leaving alliances to get a better primetime. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
426
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:50:43 -
[639] - Quote
Overall I'd like to commend CCP for having excellent reasoning and goals for this revamp, there are obviously some details to be worked out, but the general spirit is great.
Summer is coming <3
|
Agent Known
Night Theifs DamnedNation
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:50:55 -
[640] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:Agent Known wrote:Jacus Noir wrote:hmm "Prime Time" goes a bit like this, Alliance mail goes out reading:
CTA Everyone! Structures are going vulnerable in 1 hour, drop what you are doing, come hug the station and defend the system from attack...btw we get to do this every day of the week same time, so get used to stopping what you are doing and not enjoying the "sandbox" and get used to playing king of the hill.
I mean seriously CCP...the current system is miles better than this, are you TRYING to push people back into low sec? I mean Im sorry but these changes are absolute garbage, you guys really need to go back to the drawing board and take a look at this because this is very labor intensive and having to do it every single flipping day is madding enough for someone to go, eh not worth it just go back to low sec where I can fight instead of having to baby sit my station every 20 hours. If you want your own little piece of New Eden, you have to fight for it. Pretty simple. No longer can half your alliance fool around in other parts of the universe knowing full well that all their systems are perfectly safe until almost a week of timers pass. That's why you are CURRENTLY in Null doing that, right?
If you ran a locator agent on me in order to post that response, that really doesn't matter what I personally am doing (after all, ships need to be bought...). But anyway... |
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
578
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:51:00 -
[641] - Quote
Consider replacing the 4-hour prime time with an alliance-selectable variable-sized window, and tie defensive bonuses to the size of the window. Ie. a smaller window reduces the defensive bonuses, and a larger window increases the defensive bonus.
Thus, an alliance which chooses a narrow window of vulnerability will be at risk for a shorter period, but signifcantly more vulnerable during that window, compared to an alliance which chooses a wider window of vulnerability.
This should benefit alliances which recruit members across more timezones, and lower the effectiveness of alliances which predominately operate only within a narrow block of timezones and are currently relatively invulnerable during that block. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2060
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:51:28 -
[642] - Quote
Princess Cherista wrote:Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:I've read like the first 6 pages of comments. And one of the prevailing comments was "Where is the bonus / incentive for owning sov?" Now I've never actually been a sov resident but please enlighten me. If there are no incentives to hold sov currently, why are there any systems in EVE that are currently being held by an alliance or an other? For that matter why is renting null systems a thing? I mean there are no incentives to holding sov right now is there? Docking
Docking is linked to outpost ownership. I think if you own all three sov and have maxed out occupancy then that systeh should get combat mission agents
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
129
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:51:33 -
[643] - Quote
Capqu wrote:also rip supers LOL
Fighters and bombers should be able to shoot pos :< |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
669
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:52:06 -
[644] - Quote
How will new outposts be built? Will I-hubs/TCUs be required? Or can anyone drop a station in a system that they don't have any form of control over?
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:52:47 -
[645] - Quote
Actually... A thought on "prime time". What if we could set it in 2-hour windows that did not need to be contiguous? Then, if an alliance has, say, an EU contingent and a US contingent, they could set it for those two. Even with this 4-hour window, US West and US East are practically two different activity time zones. (They just happen to run up against each other.) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1937
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:52:48 -
[646] - Quote
After reading most of these pages, my main concern is nothing addresses the population density problem, you still can't run many players at once in a system, making it vastly harder to defend against these snap timers. These aspects need fixing at the same time or before this system is implemented. A good Null system should look like Osmon does for standard size of local. |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:53:11 -
[647] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:Memphis Baas wrote:Consider me a high-sec carebear, and feel free to treat my opinion as worthless, but what I'm seeing is:
1. Any roaming gang will entosis whatever they can while they roam, and eventually the defender's list of sov units that must be defended will include all of them. Turning the 4 hours "prime time" into "mandatory home defense time for 4 hours." You're presenting the dev blog from the point of view of one attacker and one defender, when in reality it's more like posting something controversial in General Discussion and then having to defend your views against the entire playerbase. I wonder how fun it will be having to counter-entosis all the potshots, every day.
2. Eventually, the system will be: If you want to mine, PVE, or go roaming in enemy space, you must do it at non-prime hours, because prime time is for home defense (and besides, enemy isn't vulnerable in your prime anyway). This does give pilots from other time zones something to do.
3. Bye bye capitals. Exactly. A bit like putting the cart before the horse eh?
For a lot of categories of leisure type players that's going to be quite a bit of an issue.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:53:33 -
[648] - Quote
Agent Known wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:REALLY IMPORTANT:
Entosis Link should trigger alert IMMEDIATELY - not after a 10 Minute delay when the damage is already done!!!!
*(Please like this post so Dev's will clearly see this) If you're actively using the system they're contesting then intel channels would tell you well before they got to the structures anyway.
Intel channels don't tell you someone's fit or cargo.
No where in all of EVE's mechanics does an attacker of a POS or POCO or ANY player owned structure get a free 10 minute head start in contesting anything in this game....
@#$@ THAT! That's **** game design right there --- I'm all for what's proposed EXCEPT that!
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
894
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:54:13 -
[649] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:After reading most of these pages, my main concern is nothing addresses the population density problem, you still can't run many players at once in a system, making it vastly harder to defend against these snap timers. These aspects need fixing at the same time or before this system is implemented. A good Null system should look like Osmon does for standard size of local.
You don't think CCP isn't taking this opportunity to nerf income?
Signature locked |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
295
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:55:32 -
[650] - Quote
Demetri Dentrov wrote:huh. Ok.
So, what's to stop the largest alliances from simply synchronizing their vulnerability windows? Perhaps I don't fully understand the system (Only read it once. Didn't scribble stuff on scratch paper like I usually do...) but wouldn't syncing the vulnerability window create a sort of "Mutually Assured Destruction" scenario that neither alliance would dare to breach?
If you need all your forces to defend during a window, then you cannot use those forces to attack during the same window.
That doesn't sound like an inherently bad state of affairs.
The MAD right now is that sov structure bashes guarantee that every, single, fight, escalates into a TiDi cap brawl (or a timer being flat out ignored by one side or the other). People don't breach this balance because grinding out structures that noone showed up to defend is BORING. Likewise, TiDi cap brawls, for all their marketing awesomeness? Also boring. No one wants to risk upsetting the status quo and be forced into a long series of structure bashes to defend their own sov after a retaliation.
What you propose is an environment where two alliances are fighting at the same time across multiple constellations, ideally with just as many people as would have been involved in the TiDi cap brawl, except all in different systems, in mixed size fleets, taking (or defending) multiple objectives, with overall coordination and strategy of these multiple forces being a major component of the victory. In other words, fun. Alliances aren't going to avoid that, they're going to actively seek it.
EDIT TL;DR -- MAD right now is not actually stopping anything because of the D; it's more like MAB (mutually assured boredom). If we could replace the B with an actual D, people would gladly lead their alliances to fiery extinction provided it was a fun experience to do so. |
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
62
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:55:48 -
[651] - Quote
I actually think this is a very novel approach, and aside from the bad mechanic of pressing a module and waiting, I like the overall architecture (yeah the 4 hour window may use some tweaking, but is a good starting number).
Bad Mechanic = Push button wait x amount of time (10 minutes to 40 minutes after the initial cycle of 2 to 5 minutes).
I see this as an incredible opportunity to introduce something really interesting and innovative. The Entosis Link module can eventually be used as the bridge interface into a Dust 514 capture environment.
Since we are in pods flying and interfacing with our ships virtually, the Entosis Link can be a way to project ourselves into a capture defense environment created by the structure. In here we will essentially load onto a Dust 514 Grid into an avatar of ourselves. We would then play the first person shooter by having to capture an objective from NPC defenses and hold it for the duration (the first cycle can be calibration time where we setup lodouts and whatnot).
Still keep the limitation of 1 link and the other link simply boots out all Dust 514 interfaces OR creates a 1v1 dualing opportunity where you can boot the other out for some amount of time, but for simplicity, just have it lock all out.
This would also create an interesting dynamic where you need to reposition your better Dust players around the constellation during the big event, as other players might suck and fail repeatedly.
This will give the poor schlub having to click the module something REAL and SKILLFULL to do, where he/she will play a critical role in the capture process, while still potentially getting blown up in his ship, while being defended in normal Eve-O by friendly ships. This also uses already built eve mechanics and lore (well I guess the PC Dust version wasn't/isn't finished, but I did say eventually)
This will also mitigate against useless alts that are only there to click the module and further moves away from pointless multiboxing mechanics (if something isn't engaging enough to do that requires your attention it is a bad mechanic and needs to be moved away from, as this is where alts start springing up, to push the thing and wait for the thing to do the thing etc etc etc, meanwhile the human is doing this N+1 number of times across multiple cients).
Having a mini-game could work as a placeholder, but those aren't really so much skill based as they are random luck in clicking the buttons, in a bad version of minesweeper (I would rather have a freakin eve themed angry birds to play instead).
The big takeaway is the pilot activating the module should have something immersive, compelling, and engaging to do that requires skill while the capture clock is running, and if not done will result in failure.
Harry Saq for CSM X
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
917
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:56:49 -
[652] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:X Gallentius wrote:xartin wrote:gment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.
Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.
UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.
How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly. BECAUSE OMG IT'S DIFFERENT AND HARD AND CCP ARE KILLING MY PLAYSTYLE AND MAKING SOV WORTHLESS!!!!! No, sov is largerly worthless already, only thing the vast majority of buffer zones allow you to do is get an early warning that a Random Legion is knocking on your door. Then again, I'm sure Test could live in a region full of -0.05's just because it's sov. TEST can stand on it's own without aid from 15,000 other people too, collapsing 2 alliances into iself, and being under the thumb of Mittani too. Now if we are done measuring e-peen, sov isn't worthless. The people that own the majority of it have turtled up and decided that it's in their best interest to be friends and make money off of it without actually using it themselves. This is nerfing that, and will hopefully bring about a more active and dynamic sov ecosystem where gudfites are easily found and people deploying across the map for fights because they allied with everyone next door is a thing of the past.
I fully agree on your point, you needed 19 000 this round with multiple alliance smore collapsing in Catch just to get a random piece of sov.
In the new system you will be able to take sov without own forces alone as you'll outnumber lots of other null dwellers already so I guess that's a plus. |
Darius Caliente
The Pinecone Squad
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:57:00 -
[653] - Quote
These changes look (almost) awesome!
I include the (almost) for a single reason, which breaks the entire design. The "4 hour vulnerability window" is a horribly flawed concept. Anyone who has fought over POCOs will tell you that you always set the RF timer to the time when your enemy has the least people on. For the majority of groups in EVE, this mean setting your timer from 09:30 - 13:30. Not only do you avoid most major groups but you limit your threats to Aussie players who are interrupted by downtime. I fear that this same tactic would be employed for Sov defense, making it impossible for the majority of EVE to take part. With downtime occurring at 11:00 and an active system requiring a 40-minute capture time time, the ability to capture is slim.
Let's assume that I know the system I want is active (40-minute capture time) and they used the classic 09:30 - 13:30 timeframe. I have a 50-minute window before downtime to active my Entosis link. Let's assume an average downtime of 30 minutes (this can of course be slightly shorter or slightly longer). I have a 120-minute window post downtime. You've now take my 240-minute window and turned it into a 170-minute window.
In another scenario, assume I'm smart enough to review the EVE Offline activity graphics ( http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility ) and determine that the lowest point of activity is between 07:00 and 08:00 each day. I use this number to set my timer for 08:00 to 12:00. I remove 40 minutes before DT + DT, that's 70 minutes gone, again taking myself to the 170-minute window but I've now ensured that the largest active chunk of time (08:00 - 10:20) sees the lowest activity with ~17K active players.
At this point, I've greatly increased the difficulty in taking the system.
Instead, why not use the true activity level of the pilots to indicate the true prime time. Allow a corporation to indicate their prime time when they first take a system. However, adjust the prime time automatically on a rolling 7-day average, similar to how corporation and alliance standings are calculated. If 95% of NPCs are killed and 80% of Ore is mined between 20:00 and 21:00, that should become the middle of the 4-hour vulnerability window. This prevents the window from being used as a defensive mechanic to limit the threat.
It would also then be possible to add a mechanic that says a system with no activity over the 7-day average loses it's window and is always vulnerable, making it even easier to take inactive systems.
|
Lake Askiras
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:57:13 -
[654] - Quote
Couple concerns: -If the Entosis hackingmathingy doesnt stop your ship, I-¦m gonna orbit the thing in a interceptor going 20k m/s and laugh at everyone -The prime time thing, although I understand why you think its good idea, BUT consider this drives alliances to throw multi-timezone away and only focus on single tz, the "prime time". You need to either make the window lot longer or come up with something else. |
A1arica
High Flyers The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:57:30 -
[655] - Quote
At first read through, the thoughts that come to mind is:
* It encourages ratting and mining so you have a maxed out index. -- This should make all the "carebears" happy in "I'm supporting my alliance by padding my corporation's and own wallet."
* Having a strict 4 hour time window that can only be changed every 96 hours is not a good game design -- it limits variety over multiple systems that may be used by different corps within an alliance IN DIFFERENT Time Zones -- it discourages diversity of people working together for a common goal because it creates segaration of the population via timezones.
* Lacking a true catalyst for conflict -where is the risk vs rewards -- I can see that smaller entities may still try and stake a foothold but it doesn't address the larger sov holding coalitions today from still not being able to get to a system in time for their "vunerable 4 hour window" -- It encourages members to stay in their home systems and relatively speaking not seek out conflict . . . thus still being in the same situation today of stagnation. Or, the Oh's it XX:XX time to fend off the daily roam.
Something to consider related to the Entosis Link module, will this promote corp hopping so that a small goup of people can quickly be in the "right" alliance for who wants to hold the sov within a coaltion defending a system then continue to depend on the allies for the pvp ship defenses?
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10022
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:57:35 -
[656] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I keep hearing how bad nullsec is, then a Nulli guys says its so bad he rents it out to people who pay them vast rent and presumbaly make ISK out of it, otherwise they would not be there. The contradictions are huge, why would they rent space if they could not make ISK out of it.
If you were interested in the truth, the answer would have been obvious to you: Because it makes more sense to rent it to some poor sucker with lower standards and use your own time to go do something either more fun (pvp) OR more lucrative pve things of which their are many. |
Borat Guereen
Chao3 Chao3 Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:59:53 -
[657] - Quote
At last, I am all caught up with this threadnaught and the devblog behind i and I really like what I have read about the upcoming planned changes. Making pieces of sov easier to take is part of my CSM X platform. I like how the control nodes will spread the fight around.
There are a few things that I believe need more work:
The Prime time issue: Make prime time strictly for the reinforcement exit. One great idea previosuly posted is to extend the prime time range for attacks based on current occupancy activity, so an inactive system could be attacked anytime, or a system with its indexes all at 5 could only be attacked during the set prime time. Another one would to also set an invulnerability time of 8 hours where the local structures can't be attacked. I would also favor to set the prime time at the corp owning the structure level, rather than at the alliance level.
The Entosis link mechanic: Great mechanic overall, but I would suggest that entosis link should work anywhere within the grid on a structure without needing to lock it, to get rid of the current relation with the ship's locking range. The T2 difference would only be about the cycle time, and not the range anymore. Only cruiser size of larger ships could fit en entosis link. To affect station services or command nodes, a cruiser size hull or above would be required. To affect iHub, you would nee a battleship hull, the link from smaller ships would not work. To affect a station, you would need a capital hull, the link from smaller ships would not work. Entosis link would be invulnerable to any e-war, and the ship applying it would lose its mobility and not be bumpable out of range either. It would have to be destroyed to terminate the link. Last but not least, the link could not be applied too close to the target structure, especialy on stations or services where the ship would have to stay at least 150km away for the link to work. I do not think station games would be good, and the defenders (and attackers in freeport state) would have to commit to the fight out of docking range.
Sov Benefits
I concur with those that suggest that more activities are included in the indexes increase, including PvP, PI, industry... and I do agree that some kind of extra benefit from these indexes in term of income should be incorporated, much like the ESS brings some extra income for its presence.
cast your votes for CSM X!
votez pour le CSM X!
Candidat francophone et Troll d'Altrue 27:45
|
Big Bits
Spartan Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:01:34 -
[658] - Quote
Enthosis module needs to be similar to cyno: 0 mobility while it's activated. Also 250km range is insane. |
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:04:41 -
[659] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:CCP in all their might.. still never even mentions on how they will deal with AFK CLOAKY CAMPING in null sec
as I previously mentioned "we'll all end up AFK CLOAKING left and right"
therefore with this plan.
A- Cloaky Camper begins camping a system.. dropping its indexes allowing for easy take over with frigate fleets
this is what CCP wants and calls it active gameplay
thanks for the direction to another game and company ill spend with them instead of you ccp..
congrats on losing money
shhh shhh im right behind you .... point! |
Aaeriele
Raising the Bar Of Sound Mind
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:05:12 -
[660] - Quote
Shalazan wrote:At night, there are fairies. And these magical fairies can only come out in the deepest darkest night four a few hours. Now these fairies have magical wands, known by the village elders as "Entosis Links". Now, during these few hours the magic fairies can use their wands to cause trouble, reinforcing the castles of the land and making terrible timers appear on them. Now the abandoned castles take no time at all, because nobody loves them and have abandoned them, you know what that's like. But in heavily used castles, the magic fairies may have to use their wands longer and put more magic into the the castle before it falls.
Now, when these magic faeries use their special wands they become vulnerable and unable to move! During this time the knights of the castle can defend their lord and banish these fairies in an explosion. Additionally, magical wizards can also use these wands to defend their land and stop the magic of the fairies from reinforcing the land. Now, if the magic fairies are successful in reinforcing the castle, it will have a timer. When this magical hour glass is done ticking down, it will cause magical places to pop up in the area of that castle. The wizards and fairies must once again battle using their wands for control of these magical lands to control the overall castle. If the defending wizards control the majority of these lands, the castle is saved and the fairies have to wait until its dark again to attack. But if the fairies win, the castle will be locked open for all to use and visit by the gods of generosity for two days, after which another magical battle for all the land occurs, where the one who holds the majority of the lands gets the castle.
The end.
x space fairy
CEO, Raising the Bar
EVELink - A better set of Python bindings for the EVE API
|
|
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
873
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:05:35 -
[661] - Quote
owned you in pos sov owned you in dominion sov will own you in occupancy sov
still havent felt the touch of a woman
Follow me on twitter
|
Canaith Lydian
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:05:42 -
[662] - Quote
It's brilliant on many levels. I'm looking forward a system that uses everything Eve and integrates in into SOV. Miners, ratters, PVP'ers, and everyone in an alliance matters, and there are benefits for embracing more of the game. Everyone is more important. Awesome. Can't wait to see it work. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
894
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:05:55 -
[663] - Quote
No structure shooting. Ammo futures just took a dump
|
Infrequent
Vanilla.
79
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:10:53 -
[664] - Quote
All of these null anom bear tears, my god this is a gold mine. Can't wait for these changes, if you're threatening to leave null or infact Eve in general because CCP are actually making educated decisions on Eve's most prominent issue, good because the game really does not need people like you.
Keep it up CCP, once things get ironed out, tweaks made, numbers crunched, we'll have us a fantastic set of changes coming to null that'll finally work to get it out of it's sorry state. |
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:10:54 -
[665] - Quote
Good changes overall.
Cheer CCP. |
Searbhreathach
Sock Robbers Inc. Low-Class
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:13:19 -
[666] - Quote
everyone please calm down, this dev blog is clearly just an early april fools joke right? RIGHT? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
663
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:15:20 -
[667] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I keep hearing how bad nullsec is, then a Nulli guys says its so bad he rents it out to people who pay them vast rent and presumbaly make ISK out of it, otherwise they would not be there. The contradictions are huge, why would they rent space if they could not make ISK out of it. If you were interested in the truth, the answer would have been obvious to you: Because it makes more sense to rent it to some poor sucker with lower standards and use your own time to go do something either more fun (pvp) OR more lucrative pve things of which their are many.
No, its because they do multiple things with their space, for example we ice mined, we did anomalies, we were planning to build certain things that you need sov space for, some guys were mining anomalies that needed to be scanned down, alll the sorts of things you can do as a team, and we had fun in space that we called our own, blowing up people who thought we were uselss renters was the most fun and we fought incredible odds to keep it.
I can safely say that the time I was in Querious as Pirate nation renting 4 terrible systems was the best time I had in game and I left that space far richer then when I entered it.
That was Eve to me and this system really may give me what I want, a system where you can fight and hold, ISK per hour mania can go run screaming for all I care.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:15:47 -
[668] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:I love every one of those 7000+ words.
Ram it home.
and watch the CFC bite the pillow |
Flo Skyler
Indy Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:16:38 -
[669] - Quote
I am all for changing sov mechanics, but im not sure if this is a good way of doing it.
Sov holders will have to defend their space from any pvp entity looking for a "gud fight", even if said entity have no interest whatsoever in actually holding sov. This is great for ppl who wants to pvp, they can go out and pick a fight and after they have seen what is arrayed against them, decide whether or not to engage and even pick the fights in their favor to some degree since their main objective is the fight, not getting sov. This could become a real strain on sov holders, constantly having to defend their territory against pilots with no real interest in holding sov. I fail to see what advantages there are to holding sov that can make up for having to form up every day for defensive timers or to prevent said timers from happening in the first place.
CCP want more players in null sec. I fail to see how these sov changes will improve that. In fact i think it will have quite the opposite effect. When you make it easier to take sov you also make it harder for sov holders to create the kind of stable environment needed for carebears to live in. Yes it will be easier for smaller entities to get a foothold in null, but it will be just as easy for them to loose that again and tbh i dont think the reward for holding sov is big enough for ppl to invest their time and assets into holding sov when they can loose it again on a whim.
My guess is, that the big coalitions will not be able to hold on to as much sov as they currently do. I think they will focus on some core regions and maybe we will see a more segregated sov map where alliances are more focused in a single region rather than multiple like we see today. I fear that the best sov will be held by the coalitions and the rest will become a barren wasteland where sov changes hands on a daily basis or not at all and chaos rules.
To sum up. Changes are great for pvp (or at least the offensive side). Not so great for the ppl that actually holds sov and try to make a living there. |
Event Handler
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:16:39 -
[670] - Quote
ok.. This is an Event I cant Handle...
This is an early april fools joke right?
Did blizzard pay you guys to make this WoW in space? |
|
svingor
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:18:26 -
[671] - Quote
that primetimer is crap it forces alliances to focus on one TZ.... and whatabout ceptors orbiting with the E-link, YEAH RIGHT.. |
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:18:39 -
[672] - Quote
After a few hours of reading, talking and thinking about it I'm still amazed after months of work this is what you came up with.
1. this system won't shake up the current coalition cluster, it'll only lead to mergers to keep the number of entities lower 2. you go from million HP sov structures to 1x frig being able to reinforce a system with a 20m mod 3. a global game across all TZs gets enslaved by the TZ setting of the defender 4. 250km range on the entosis mod, srsly 5. supercapitals are worthless now 6. Risk vs. reward - why should people commit to 0.0 7. freeport mode - happy station games and constant bubbles
Let's talk a bit about the positive things a bit.
1. no sbus anymore - good riddance 2. nodes to split up fleets, good idea - but tweak the numbers down, 10x per each node is too much 3. focus on constellations 4. defensive boni (but give it to all RF modes, not just the first cycle)
Now let's try to fix this mess. First of all, you can't be serious about the Entosis mod. Nobody should be able to reinforce a system on his own and especially not in a frig with a 20m mod. Cut down the range of the mod to 20km/25km for t1/t2. This keeps people on the sov structure, make it only useable on large+ hulls. The supercapital / capital issue is still unsolved and I'm not sure how you can make supers viable with this system. But you could tweak fatigue - maybe change fatigue this way - you don't get any fatigue within the same region, only if you jump into another region. That makes carriers and dreads more useful in a regional conflict. ADD NPC SPACE to EACH region. Make every region vulnerable, you do all that fancy lore stuff but nothing about this has a meaningful effect. Let incursions take over stations that aren't used, create NPC space where people don't use it, give pilots the ability to get close to the heart of the enemy. Create decent staging options, put stress on large entities so that regional powers can grow, not superpowers.
Now a more general comment - how is this system supposed to break up the status quo of eve? CFC and N3 are still going to reign over most regions, probably cutting down a bit on the edges to keep the pressure down, but it's not going to be that bad. Probably worse for PL and N3, now that their entire supercapital and capital fleet are rendered useless. Why haven't you tried to create a system that encourages to field medium sized alliances that can fight regional conflicts? The risk vs. rewards of 0.0 are even worse now, we're going to see more cloaky campers, stations with assets are even more vulnerable with the freeport mode, now that the enemy can just jump in a JF with dictors. Well done. You had the approval of most players to change something big about 0.0, shake things up. CHANGE STUFF BIG TIME. All you came up with is a mod like a TP that claims sov. Way to go. A space that has been designed to build and support large fleets of capital and supercapital ships, now in the hands of ceptors with a spray can. How could you not see the limitations and weaknesses of this system? |
Suitonia
Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep
464
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:19:47 -
[673] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:You mentioned that the Entosis link will have low fitting requirements, and not disable propulsion while active.
What is there to prevent massive hordes of T2 entosis fitted interceptors from completely swarming an area and putting entosis links on everything?
All the ceptor has to do is stay within a 250km bubble of the objective, and even if hostiles show up, you just have to MWD around for 2 minutes. If the enemy is trying to entosis your objective, do the same.
What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours? You've made sov easier to take, but that works both ways.
Any small group that slights a big group can expect all their space reinforced in less than 30 minutes. By interceptors.
So the future of Sov warfare is inteceptor with sov lasers, slippery petes to kill interceptors, and absolutely no fleet on fleet fighting.
It's ok you have CowWarrior
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
Current Habit
Get LP or Die Trying
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:20:15 -
[674] - Quote
Are there any changes to non-hostile sov transfers (ether between corps in the same alliance or between two alliances via a transfer corp)?
Is it still gonna be possible? |
Lquid Drisseg
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:20:24 -
[675] - Quote
I am optimistic about the future of SOV and happy that CCP had the brains to release this with enough time to actually incorporate player feedback time + design review time + extra development time.
- Does it need tweaks? Yes
- Is this the end of the SOV roadmap? No
- Can we deal with these changes+feedback for now so CCP can get some good data and improve it further? Yes
Please take your time and get this right CCP, I don't want a whole new cluster to explore next year that's based on a crap SOV system. Take your time and do it right. This one is worth your time. |
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:20:28 -
[676] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Nyan Lafisques wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Tia Aves wrote:If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit. /r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite. Grrr goons. People there enjoy the changes not because of goons, but because they believe these changes are good. People are entirely free to hold beliefs that are wrong.
tis the bed you make, now sleep in it :D |
Czan Olmzi
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:20:54 -
[677] - Quote
Helios Panala wrote:Alliances need to be able to set 'prime-time' on a per structure basis so that groups spread across multiple timezones can be given content, at the very least you can have your different TZs defending different borders.
Other than that looks good to me.
Yes. If the prime-time window could be set differently for each system or structure, rather than one time across the whole alliance then alliances with multiple TZs would naturally set primes-times, proportionally, according to the number of members they have in each TZ, not only to provide content for each TZ but to eliminate the need to protect ALL its space during one prime-time. Is this not a very obvious solution? I can't claim to be an authority on the current system but for the proposed changes this would seem to make sense. Am I missing something? |
jita Pirkibo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:21:46 -
[678] - Quote
Guess i'll have to stay in jita now this **** is going to happen,... Bye Bye mixed-TZ allainces of any relevance in 0.0 (sov-nullsec) |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:22:25 -
[679] - Quote
Nb4 Record Breaking posts - RIP Phoebe Thread
Oh and - just say no to giving Entosis Link (attackers) free headstarts!
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Agent Known
Night Theifs DamnedNation
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:23:34 -
[680] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Nb4 Record Breaking posts - RIP Phoebe Thread
Oh and - just say no to giving Entosis Link (attackers) free headstarts!
This thread has already passed all the other stickies in reply count and it's only been a couple hours. This should be a fun ride. |
|
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
111
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:23:51 -
[681] - Quote
Quote:I'm still amazed after months of work this is what you came up with. This sums it up pretty good, i think.
*slow claps* |
omgdutch2005
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:24:05 -
[682] - Quote
WTF is this? Guess next up is shiney cartoon graphics and we call it WoW - Space online?
I'd rather shoot structures then to have this kind of atrocity.... |
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:24:18 -
[683] - Quote
Querns wrote:Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Am I wrong to believe that the new system involves a lot less destruction? In the old system - apart from stations, sov structures were being shot at and destroyed, which provided an engine for the eve economy. In the new system, basically you flash a light at a sov structure and it flips back and forth in a glorified game of tag, no destruction required. As a result, have we just lost a significant driver of the eve economy? TCUs and IHUBs are blown to smithereens once an attacker successfully contests their sov game. This is especially important for IHUBs, which are freighter sized.
oh man think of all the fraighter kills, i cant wait :D |
Murkelost
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:29:00 -
[684] - Quote
This is a very bad idea since it forces alliances to focus to a single TZ. And the entosis link is OP, since like a ceptor can fly around ihub's at ludicrous per sec and take the ihub. Entosis should be forced into siege mode as it go active in it's task. |
Michael Ignis Archangel
Caveat Emptor Technologies LP Liberti Fidelis
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:29:28 -
[685] - Quote
Possible addition to the TZ vulnerability window: base this also off of the indices.
A newly captured sovereign system would have a window of say, 8 hours. A 5/5/5 indexed system would be vulnerable only 3 hours/day. If the system sits unused for some period of time, allow the vulnerability window to degrade expansively out from the alliance-selected prime time until it's 23.5/7.
All numbers are suggestions, there was no particular logic behind the initial 8, or the optimal 3.
This would increase the defender's advantage and their incentive to use the space. It would also allow a simpler steamroll of truly unused space. |
Mira Lemuria
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:29:29 -
[686] - Quote
horrible!!
mkae it like a siege high-sec item... it should not be easy to do it w an inty... |
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:30:01 -
[687] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Agent Known wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:REALLY IMPORTANT:
Entosis Link should trigger alert IMMEDIATELY - not after a 10 Minute delay when the damage is already done!!!!
*(Please like this post so Dev's will clearly see this) If you're actively using the system they're contesting then intel channels would tell you well before they got to the structures anyway. Intel channels don't tell you someone's fit or cargo. No where in all of EVE's mechanics does an attacker of a POS or POCO or ANY player owned structure get a free 10 minute head start in contesting anything in this game.... @#$@ THAT! That's **** game design right there --- I'm all for what's proposed EXCEPT that!
You haven't read the part with the E-link thoroughly enough, it explicitly states:
Quote:Entosis Links have a significant cycle time (5 minutes for the Tech One variant, 2 minutes for Tech Two) and do not start affecting the battle for control of the target structure until the end of their first cycle.
and
Quote: Once the first cycle of the Entosis Link completes and the capture progress begins the Alliance who owns the structure will be notified of the attack and will need to respond in order to prevent the attackers from reinforcing the structure.
Therefore, your point is moot, you immediately get a warning, once a capture-attempt is starting to count down. |
Escuro
Disassembly workshop Out of Sight.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:30:32 -
[688] - Quote
Regarding the not-so awesome prime time limitation.
How bout using some Stronth and auto-reinforcing it for a MAXIMUM of, for example, 16 hours per eve-day. Alliances can select a smaller reinforce time to save ISK and abandoned systems with no stronth will be availiable 23/7. Also, you can use none if you're greedy as hell.
EDIT: Also, there can be a constellation blockade mechanic invented in this. After the SOV update most alliances in eve will shrink anyway. |
Evil BeeHatch
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:31:35 -
[689] - Quote
Prime time timer: For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz. We need to make this go away.
Entosis Link: This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode. |
Des Jardin
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:32:35 -
[690] - Quote
I am not in favor of the "prime time" as it would tend to decrease available content.
Suggestion:
Introduce a mechanic where the attacking fleet can alter the prime time window.
"Good against remotes is one thing.-á Good against the living ... that's something else."
|
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:32:43 -
[691] - Quote
CCP
Re: 96 Hour Timer
So when this is launched and no one has a Preferred Timer window set - will it still take 96 Hours to set before anything can start happening?
Or will everyone get a default Preferred Time at launch, until it is changed manually and then +96hrs?
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Freyr Padac
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:33:44 -
[692] - Quote
Prime time timer, WTF that is only going to cause an alliance to focus on a single TZ
Entosis Link, If it is to exist it needs to be like a siege module and be unable to move as well or this is going to be crazy with ceptors |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4201
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:33:55 -
[693] - Quote
Sarel Hendar wrote:1.) I'd recommend restrictions on entosis module so that it can't be fitted into frigate- or destroyer-class hulls. Otherwise we'll have troll-fitted T3 Destroyers or Interceptors that'll be MWD-orbitting at 200 kilometers and nearly impossible to stop or hit. 2.) Idea: In a twist to command nodes, you could have in addition to normal ones "variant" command nodes that have to be probed out and capturing which is worth slightly more than "regular" command nodes (eg. something like 1.1-1.3 "regular" ones). Nothing overwhelming, just some edge to the side willing/able to have a combat prober in fleet... 3.) Timezone segmentation could be problematic. Needs thinking about. 4.) ECM interactions with entosis will need thinking about. 200-Falcon troll fleets aren't fun for anyone. 5.) Capital- and Supercapital roles will need thinking about.
1.) An interceptor doesn't have the lock range to "lock" a station while orbiting at 200 km's. As a matter of fact, most "long range" kiting concepts can be countered by damps. The Arazu / Lachesis easily have lock ranges out to 200 km's, and when properly rigged, their damps will occasionally hit a target at that range. Break their lock, and they can't entosis anymore.
2.) I like this idea.
3.) I concur. I think some TZ segmentation is necessary, but I find the window a bit on the small side. 6 hours seems more reasonable than 4 hours. I can't decide if this will hurt or help AU TZ groups.
4.) ECM Troll fleets are easy to beat. They do poor dps and hard counters.
5.) I'm not worried about supercapitals, as applying an entosis is akin to sieging, which is a fairly dangerous thing for them to do.
|
MIss Sideways
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:34:34 -
[694] - Quote
wtf? change!!! noo!!! *rage*!!
all jokes aside...
make it harder for folks to capture if you want to implement this...
Change it so that folks have to siege for this... |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3942
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:36:21 -
[695] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.
The Rules: 5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
Please keep it constructive and on topic people!
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Nof Nof
Incertae Sedis
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:37:44 -
[696] - Quote
Flo Skyler wrote:I am all for changing sov mechanics, but im not sure if this is a good way of doing it.
Sov holders will have to defend their space from any pvp entity looking for a "gud fight", even if said entity have no interest whatsoever in actually holding sov. This is great for ppl who wants to pvp, they can go out and pick a fight and after they have seen what is arrayed against them, decide whether or not to engage and even pick the fights in their favor to some degree since their main objective is the fight, not getting sov. This could become a real strain on sov holders, constantly having to defend their territory against pilots with no real interest in holding sov. I fail to see what advantages there are to holding sov that can make up for having to form up every day for defensive timers or to prevent said timers from happening in the first place.
CCP want more players in null sec. I fail to see how these sov changes will improve that. In fact i think it will have quite the opposite effect. When you make it easier to take sov you also make it harder for sov holders to create the kind of stable environment needed for carebears to live in. Yes it will be easier for smaller entities to get a foothold in null, but it will be just as easy for them to loose that again and tbh i dont think the reward for holding sov is big enough for ppl to invest their time and assets into holding sov when they can loose it again on a whim.
My guess is, that the big coalitions will not be able to hold on to as much sov as they currently do. I think they will focus on some core regions and maybe we will see a more segregated sov map where alliances are more focused in a single region rather than multiple like we see today. I fear that the best sov will be held by the coalitions and the rest will become a barren wasteland where sov changes hands on a daily basis or not at all and chaos rules.
To sum up. Changes are great for pvp (or at least the offensive side). Not so great for the ppl that actually holds sov and try to make a living there.
You are forgetting about the covert ops camping thst exists nowaday. Only difference is you only have a 4 hour window to worry about. Team up with some pvp people or focus on defense fleets etc. Cause yes there will be people griefing and there will be people wanting good fights and you know what? Pvp players have had to sit there while indy null bears go and hide in their stations anytime 1 neut is in local and talk smack from station. Explain to me why there is anything wrong with holding your own destiny you shouldn't have human concord to hold your hand.
|
Agent Known
Night Theifs DamnedNation
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:37:58 -
[697] - Quote
Evil BeeHatch wrote:Prime time timer: For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz. We need to make this go away.
Entosis Link: This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode.
Maybe so...but CCP could always make it require too much PG to be fittable on interceptors that try to also fit an oversized MWD. Same with the Svipul. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
580
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:39:04 -
[698] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes. CCP Fozzie wrote:Only one may be fitted per ship. CCP Fozzie wrote: Capital Ships would have restrictions for using these modules, most likely in the form of a role bonus that increases the cycle time by 400% (this means a 10 minute cycle time for a T2 Entosis Link on a capital ship).
Various players wrote:Don't allow Entosis Link on interceptors, covert ops, .... I think that these sorts of specific limitations on modules rarely make much sense, and only serve to limit player creativity when fitting ships.
Why not just create multiple sizes of the Entosis Link, incl. a capital-sized version, and set the module stats accordingly, to limit what players can do with one? There can also be mass penalties, speed penalties, sig radius penalties, etc. to make it somewhat unattractive to fit to every ship in the fleet, or to fit multiple links on a single ship.
For example, to make remote assist still possible, but much less viable, the Entosis Link could have a significant armor/shield resist penalty. And, for capital ships, the fitting requirement and/or cap usage could be very large, making it problematical to also fit a tank or any significant DPS.
BTW - warping, docking, and jumping should just break the cycle. Running away should always be an option in the game. |
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
998
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:40:13 -
[699] - Quote
MIss Sideways wrote:wtf? change!!! noo!!! *rage*!!
all jokes aside...
make it harder for folks to capture if you want to implement this...
Change it so that folks have to siege for this...
A 20 hour daily invulnerability window isn't hard enough?
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1442
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:40:26 -
[700] - Quote
Nullbears are mad. Good.
The Tears Must Flow
|
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
129
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:40:37 -
[701] - Quote
"Prime time" thingy is a very bad game design. I hoped you would get rid of timezone warfare - instead, you only reinforced it.
And we see yet another shift in meta towards lighter ships. Capitals could be reprocessed altogether, and even battleships are worthless. |
Nalha Saldana
Shattered Void Test Alliance Please Ignore
878
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:41:48 -
[702] - Quote
After reading and discussing a lot there are 2 things that needs to be addressed:
1. Prime time needs to be chosen on a constellation or system level so that alliances can mix what time zones they have and designate them to live in different areas but still be able to help each other.
2. For these changes to really have a proper effect we need a economic overhaul, this isn't something that can be fixed overnight but don't expect too much serious business fighting to go on before that.
Oh and while your fixing economy, fix sec status, 80% of systems are useless for pve/mining. |
MajorScrewup
Thundercats The Initiative.
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:42:10 -
[703] - Quote
If CCP really want to get more smaller alliances into null sec then they need to make a better system than this one, but if this is what we are going to get then:
The best idea so far to combat 'prime time setting' in this thread is the idea to have core systems that are used a lot have the small 4 hour window where they can be attacked, with this degrading to a 24 hour window of attack in systems that are not used.
Occupancy could be increased via npc kills, pilots in system, ores mined, manufacturing jobs in system, moon mining, ships killed, etc.
This will force the defenders to use all the systems they own, or lose some to smaller alliances looking to make a foothold into null sec. Systems with good occupancy would keep this attribute for a certain amount of time before degrading. Of course a carrot would be needed for people to leave the better systems to use these poorer systems, in the form of better bounties from npcs, better mining yield, etc.
Eventually defenders that have to much space will have to yield systems that they cannot keep occupancy up in, or recruit more people into their alliances to help. Hopefully this will cause more PvP, as there are actual people to fight in regions rather than the emptiness that there is now; as you will have enemies close by to fight and other entities will move into the region looking for easy targets as the area is now full.
Systems with lots of activity having a 4 hour window, moving down to 24hours for a never used system. A system never used for any activities should probably degrade to unclaimed after 3 weeks.
Entosis module at 250km is easily countered by many other ways to bring the attacker in closer, so I have no problem with that.
Supercaps are back to what they should be used for, killing other capitals. The underlying problem of supercaps has never been what they can do.
Still hoping there is more to be revealed as this still feels very limited for the wait. |
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:43:36 -
[704] - Quote
Agent Known wrote:Evil BeeHatch wrote:Prime time timer: For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz. We need to make this go away.
Entosis Link: This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode. Maybe so...but CCP could always make it require too much PG to be fittable on interceptors that try to also fit an oversized MWD. Same with the Svipul.
don't let the defenders know about the Maulus! shhhh |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
307
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:43:39 -
[705] - Quote
Murkelost wrote:This is a very bad idea since it forces alliances to focus to a single TZ. And the entosis link is OP, since like a ceptor can fly around ihub's at ludicrous per sec and take the ihub. Entosis should be forced into siege mode as it go active in it's task.
I believe it does force you to be there till the cycle ends like a cyno. |
Javani
Low-Sec Survival Ltd.
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:43:56 -
[706] - Quote
I'm not sure if i hate it or it will be okey. but a few thought's:
Freeport Good idea, but to prevent ******* docking games, set an redock timer to 10 mintues or so. RP-> because the management in the station is totally in mess.
Prime Timezone As mentitentioned before, multi time zone entities have realy problems to provide defensiv to smaller groups of other timezones. Also, attacking an AU TZ is really hard for an EU timezone entity, except you have jobless people or students.
Boni from active living Yeah, this part i really like. But whats about to engage the timezone problem to make an not use system an huge vulnerable and for every avtivity in the last day/week the timer shrinks to the primetime?
Feelings about the new system It's feels a little bit too gamey and not like war. I don't see any resonable connection between spawning points to capture in the constilation and saving the sov structure. but i think any good RP background could fix this. But it will be gamey...
The Link - With small ships(frigs upto cruiser), you could orbit upto 200km away with enough sbo's but after 1 ecm hit your progess is gone? -> kitsune wars / damp wars - With medium ships(bc to bs) you will warp to zero to the bacon and try to defend your position. don't forgett your scorpoins and damps for getting rid of enemy links that will orbit over 150+ | beaware of lock breaking bombs...
Capitals hmmm carrier alt for resuppling small ships, but what will you do with dreads and larger ships?
|
Zaporozh
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:44:15 -
[707] - Quote
Love most of these changes however this Prime Time Timer needs to go away. Its going to make Multi TZ alliance be useless since the timers will only come out at one time. Entosis link needs to be a siege No reps, No moving, No ability to triage or siege. As well as make it very easy to see which ship is running the mod on the structure maybe even have it yell in local the name of the person like the ESS. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
342
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:46:04 -
[708] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Nullbears are mad. Good.
I don't know about that; it looks like a lot of them are mad because these changes will change the approach to managing and contesting sovereignty, but do not necessarily solve the existing problems with the sovereignty system. |
Bullock Atram
5th Degree Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:46:46 -
[709] - Quote
Prime Time Timer is a bad idea Its going to make diverse TZ alliances to be pointless
|
Catherine Laartii
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
485
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:48:07 -
[710] - Quote
Can we PLEASE get a dev or someone to give out solid stats for the fitting costs of Entosis links? If it's too big to fit on a frigate that would be AMAZING since it would ensure that inties would be barred from using them, and that cruiser to battleship-sized ships would be the ones capping systems. While I'm reticent about growing the cruiser meta in the game any more than it is currently, you need to ensure that cheap throwaway sh*t frigs or inties don't become the bearers for such an important module as the Entosis link.
Personally, I'd like to see battlecruisers be the only ones that can field them. They're slow enough to be manageable by opposing frigate gangs, and they're ideally adaptable to the new tech with their ability to fit command links. This plus the fact that they're less likely to be nickel-and-dimed like frigates and cruisers would make them excellent vessels for this new meta.
But for Bob's sake...please make sure that inties are unable to use these. The bubble immunity alone would bar anything else from being used in this new mechanic. |
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1111
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:48:28 -
[711] - Quote
On the docking games in a Freeport. Honestly I would charge a docking fee but keep the fee in escrow. So people get billed for docking (100,000 for a frigate, up to 10 million for a freighter/dread/carrier). Whoever wins over the Freeport in total, gets that escrow cash.
A little bit of a bonus incentive to claiming and winning the station. I'd give 5% of that escrow to the person who locks it down as a individual capture bonus, the other 95% to that persons corporation to do as sees fit.
Basically a capture corp could make billions by sniping the station and taking it's escrow. Basically if you have a person doing undock games, they pay for it. And then everybody pays for it to whoever claims the station.
Yaay!!!!
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1442
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:48:38 -
[712] - Quote
Bullock Atram wrote:Prime Time Timer is a bad idea Its going to make diverse TZ alliances to be pointless
You make that sound like it's a bad thing.
The Tears Must Flow
|
Jarn Skjoldr
Steelforge Heavy Industries Dream Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:48:58 -
[713] - Quote
OK look, CCP, I like where you tried to go with this, but there are some major problems you need to fix.
1) The 4 hour vulnerability window is way too short; doing what one of the other commenters suggested and turning it around into an 8 to 12 hour "safe" window would be a much better idea.
2) Instead of having *all* an alliance's timers set for a single window, why not allow different timers to be set depending on the region? With the jump fatigue mechanic now in place and jump clone timers at a minimum of 19 hours, alliances still wouldn't be able to jump back and forth across their space very easily and this might be a good way to allow different time zones to still participate if you decide to keep the 4 hour vulnerable idea. Have different time zones defending different regions.
3) The T2 Entosis link range is insane and the fact that ships can move while using one is even more so. The T2 Entosis link range should be brought down to double the T1 and both of them should immobilize the ship using it like a triage, siege, or bastion module does. I don't particularly like that it's a highslot either.
4) I've played FW heavily on another account and so I know firsthand how PvP anomalies can generate PvP. So while I like the idea of command nodes, I hate the fact that they're scattered across an entire constellation. My corp owns a single system, and that's all we want. We don't want to have to fly around an entire constellation to protect our single system. The best FW combat is always based on contesting of a single system in PvP anoms in that system, and nullsec command nodes should follow the same model. You say the goal of these changes is to allow smaller entities a shot at sov, but what you're really doing is telling us is that we either need to be big enough to take an entire constellation or we should just go home.
5) These sov changes make it a lot easier to lose your Sov without giving any matching value to owning sov. Like one of the other commenters said, make Sov indexes give bonuses to mining yields and rat bounties or something, anything, that adds more value to owning a crappy nullsec system over highsec missioning.
6) Sov warfare is a huge part of what makes capital ships useful. I'm really glad that you're trying to produce a sov model where owning capital ships isn't required, but eliminating their use entirely is a slap in the face to those of us who spent half a year training into them and billions of ISK buying them. They need to have some function. I'm not saying they should be an "I Win" button as they currently are, but there should be some advantage to having them vs not having them |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1164
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:49:08 -
[714] - Quote
Hugh Coloure wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Total Newbie wrote:Uh huh. Pretty graphs say whatever they want to say. Doesn't make them true. I live in null, and I just disagree there are more players here..... If there were, in fact, more players in null, road trips wouldn't be a necessity.
Anecdotal evidence versus actual statistical evidence...nice Also read the damn devblog, it explains why some areas of null have been quieter whilst there's been an overall increase across the whole game outside of your anecdotal situation. LinkPeople logging in is in a strong downward trend. The graphs you are pointing at lack a y-axis, they are impossible to interpret the scale of those changes without it.
Graph entitled "Eve Online AND DUST 514 Status Monitor".
And I don't suppose you realize that that huge downward motion just happens to coincide exactly with Fanfest 2014, when CCP basically announced that DUST was dead. What you are seeing in that graph is all the players that quit DUST.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:49:11 -
[715] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:MIss Sideways wrote:wtf? change!!! noo!!! *rage*!!
all jokes aside...
make it harder for folks to capture if you want to implement this...
Change it so that folks have to siege for this... A 20 hour daily invulnerability window isn't hard enough?
only 4 hours vulnerable, even a filthy casual can maintain that |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
235
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:49:48 -
[716] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:I believe it does force you to be there till the cycle ends like a cyno.
But, based on what the devblog said, it doesn't force you to come to a stop, unlike a cyno, triage, or siege module. |
captain foivos
State War Academy Caldari State
264
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:50:22 -
[717] - Quote
Quote:Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
ItGÇÖs very important that active and prepared alliances be provided with the tools they need to defend their homes. Providing benefits for robust in-space activity has been one of the key drivers of many of the economic changes to Nullsec over the past few years, and those changes have been quite successful in shifting the focus of Nullsec economic activity from static assets to bottom-up gameplay. ItGÇÖs now time to begin linking this same bottom-up economic activity more strongly with the world of strategic Sovereignty warfare.
In the new Sovereignty, systems full of active occupants will be vastly easier to defend and control than abandoned ones, bustling empires with a variety of activities will be stronger than AFK ones, and disrupting your enemies everyday activities in their space will help you gain advantages both strategic and economic. More details on how we intend to begin achieving this goal will be discussed later in this blog.
This section of the blog does not actually exist. You may want to go back and, you know, make holding sov give you something. |
Capt Tenguru79
Mass Production
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:52:10 -
[718] - Quote
Entosis link needs to be like a dread in siege and have it yell in local the name of the person like the ESS so that it is obvious who is doing it in a fleet fight. IMO |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3184
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:53:12 -
[719] - Quote
Evil BeeHatch wrote:Prime time timer: For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz. We need to make this go away.
How, while still having it fair to the defender?
Evil BeeHatch wrote:Entosis Link: This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode. You can stop that interceptor efforts by hitting the IHUB with your own Entosis link.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
94
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:54:07 -
[720] - Quote
Zaporozh wrote: Entosis link needs to be a siege No reps, No moving, No ability to triage or siege. As well as make it very easy to see which ship is running the mod on the structure maybe even have it yell in local the name of the person like the ESS.
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
I agree, though they already covered most of it. I think it should make the user EWAR-immune and lock them in place like siege/triage. Maybe even give them a local rep bonus like a siege module too just to make it interesting. |
|
Capt Tenguru79
Mass Production
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:54:59 -
[721] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Bullock Atram wrote:Prime Time Timer is a bad idea Its going to make diverse TZ alliances to be pointless
You make that sound like it's a bad thing. Of course it is, what you are going to get is alliances with a massive single TZ in which it would then be impossible to fight and they will never loose sov. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
780
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:55:14 -
[722] - Quote
Dev Blog wrote: Providing benefits for robust in-space activity has been one of the key drivers of many of the economic changes to Nullsec over the past few years, and those changes have been quite successful in shifting the focus of Nullsec economic activity from static assets to bottom-up gameplay. ItGÇÖs now time to begin linking this same bottom-up economic activity more strongly with the world of strategic Sovereignty warfare.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh, my sides, that hurt.
Wow. I mean, just wow. Oh god, I'm going to be giggling for days. |
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
485
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:55:35 -
[723] - Quote
Also worth noting is that ceptor can't do anything for those 10 minutes so it's a matter or burning to it with your own ceptor where the offender either has to flee beyond the 250km limit or die, either way the defender wins.
However much easier is to just use lachesis to damp that sucker (lach has a native 170km range), however a rook works even better since it has a 187km range.
However your e-war range is only 75 +48 for ecm and 56 + 90 for damps even with boosts so you still might have to chase that ceptor a bit. Then again it might be easier to just haul that sniper Rokh from the days of yore to pop that ceptor. |
Rayzilla Zaraki
Tandokuno
284
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:57:01 -
[724] - Quote
This is all really cool stuff but the whole concept of prime time seems a little bit too much like *magic*.
Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
|
Escuro
Disassembly workshop Out of Sight.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:58:15 -
[725] - Quote
Jarn Skjoldr wrote:OK look, CCP, I like where you tried to go with this, but there are some major problems you need to fix.
1) The 4 hour vulnerability window is way too short; doing what one of the other commenters suggested and turning it around into an 8 to 12 hour "safe" window would be a much better idea.
2) Instead of having *all* an alliance's timers set for a single window, why not allow different timers to be set depending on the region? With the jump fatigue mechanic now in place and jump clone timers at a minimum of 19 hours, alliances still wouldn't be able to jump back and forth across their space very easily and this might be a good way to allow different time zones to still participate if you decide to keep the 4 hour vulnerable idea. Have different time zones defending different regions.
3) The T2 Entosis link range is insane and the fact that ships can move while using one is even more so. The T2 Entosis link range should be brought down to double the T1 and both of them should immobilize the ship using it like a triage, siege, or bastion module does. I don't particularly like that it's a highslot either.
4) I've played FW heavily on another account and so I know firsthand how PvP anomalies can generate PvP. So while I like the idea of command nodes, I hate the fact that they're scattered across an entire constellation. My corp owns a single system, and that's all we want. We don't want to have to fly around an entire constellation to protect our single system. The best FW combat is always based on contesting of a single system in PvP anoms in that system, and nullsec command nodes should follow the same model. You say the goal of these changes is to allow smaller entities a shot at sov, but what you're really doing is telling us is that we either need to be big enough to take an entire constellation or we should just go home.
5) These sov changes make it a lot easier to lose your Sov without giving any matching value to owning sov. Like one of the other commenters said, make Sov indexes give bonuses to mining yields and rat bounties or something, anything, that adds more value to owning a crappy nullsec system over highsec missioning.
6) Sov warfare is a huge part of what makes capital ships useful. I'm really glad that you're trying to produce a sov model where owning capital ships isn't required, but eliminating their use entirely is a slap in the face to those of us who spent half a year training into them and billions of ISK buying them. They need to have some function. I'm not saying they should be an "I Win" button as they currently are, but there should be some advantage to having them vs not having them
1 - agree 2 - discussable, but if you have a bigger attack window - why bother? 3 - use ECM, webs, sniper-fits. small ships will need to lock on the sov-unit to capture it, thus coming close. Bigger ships lock further but are easier to hit. and no rem-reps, remeber? 4 - you'r in an alliance. you are not holding a system by means of a single corp. alliance claims a const and distributes the systems between corps. Also, if you play active in your system - enemies have a 40 MINUTE cycle. Kill it. 5 - people capture sov, people rent sov and pay billions per month. probly there IS something there already? 6 - no one is eliminating those. Spread your capitals, use them to support fleets, block gates, 1000 more uses and no blobs. |
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:58:33 -
[726] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Altirius Saldiaro wrote:I believe it does force you to be there till the cycle ends like a cyno. But, based on what the devblog said, it doesn't force you to come to a stop, unlike a cyno, triage, or siege module.
" run away, run away, run away" Arther King of the Britains |
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
428
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:59:31 -
[727] - Quote
no siege , the all point is to a let MObile small group to be able to .. you know
and if the are stucked in one place because of siege mechanic of the entosis then there is no point of all of this. Let the 200Km and let the ship move ( reduce velocity maybe ? increase sig radius? ) but no siege/stop/ anchor etc etc)
But CCp really need to work on the rewards of owning a Sov ( give bonuses to bounties, belts , ice? etc etc )
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1164
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:02:37 -
[728] - Quote
Querns wrote:Green Medics wrote:since we are going to start talking about mixing industry index with sov activity can PI have some kind of effect on the industry index? Another good suggestion for industrial index. To reiterate: Industrial index as a function of mining only discounts a significant portion of Occupancy activities that should meaningfully be derived into defense. Allow manufacturing, research, POS reactors, PI, and exploration mini-games to increase a system's industrial index in addition to mining.
I agree. There is much more to industry than mining. POS reactions, PI, manufacturing and research are all industrial activities. Exploration site spawn more based on an IHUB upgrade. So I can even see that getting thrown into the mix. But the easiest part to add would simply be a multiplier based on the system industrial index.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Aungverdal
Very Industrial Corp. Legion of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:02:45 -
[729] - Quote
great work CCP. welcome to new MOBA EVE \o/ |
Nig C
Project Stealth Squad The Initiative.
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:03:01 -
[730] - Quote
Hoi,
have read every letter... well done so far... carry on
Nig |
|
Ryan Air
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
59
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:04:23 -
[731] - Quote
I'm going to TRY and be as constructive as possible, especially since I have no better clue about how to fix Sov then you all seem to. Here are the problems with your capture the flag that I've seen within the first few minutes of reading this.
Time zones: you have created a system that will force time zones into a specific role. Either attackers or defenders. Those of us "in between" guys are being left out (I live in Alaska for instance). We will see even bigger collations (NC. EU, NC. US, NC. AU, ect) to make this work or it would pointless to be in a multi timezone alliance. A possible fix for this is to make it so corps can pick the vulnerability window, not the alliance.
Lazer sov hacker modules: this trips me out. You guys force a single solution with this (as it stands). Cepters orbit at 250k. No fight, no problem. Get three or four cepter guys per group and watch them go out reinforce a region with virtually no way to stop them all. My first though was to find a ship that can survive the 2 or 10 min activating time, of course that would be marauders, ****, Aeon or Wyvern. You have forced two separate types of game play. No in-between. Either a brawl fest (aka...gg goons) or a cepter fest. After that, it becomes a "meet me on the undock) mentality or again, orbit the station and try and catch me. The risks make choice quite simple, cepters all the way. The rewards don't seem to be there at all. Why? Why do this? Most of us want fights. Not just good fights but fights for a reason.
The biggest lack of resources in the game is decent FC's. Now, unless you get some guys who casually play cepters(no offense cepter dudes at all but my 120 mil SP wants something other then that) taking "flags", you need 10's of FC's per time zone for the battles. I realize the server strain and am utterly amazed about how you created a game that has the capability to field thousands of players in a single fight.
Capitals, I know you guys haven't "balanced" them yet but wow...way to really make me feel unimportant. Number one goal for a lot of people is to fly the biggest, baddest ship in the game. We spent YEARS...myself 8 years making that action possible. We ARE your player base that has stuck with you through the years.
As I said, I really don't have a better idea but I don't think capture the flag (as it stands) will work at all.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3184
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:05:11 -
[732] - Quote
How far can an interceptor target anyway? I doubt there is any fit that gets it to 250 km.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:05:38 -
[733] - Quote
Czan Olmzi wrote:Helios Panala wrote:Alliances need to be able to set 'prime-time' on a per structure basis so that groups spread across multiple timezones can be given content, at the very least you can have your different TZs defending different borders.
Other than that looks good to me. Yes. If the prime-time window could be set differently for each system or structure, rather than one time across the whole alliance then alliances with multiple TZs would naturally set primes-times, proportionally, according to the number of members they have in each TZ, not only to provide content for each TZ but to eliminate the need to protect ALL its space during one prime-time. Is this not a very obvious solution? I can't claim to be an authority on the current system but for the proposed changes this would seem to make sense. Am I missing something?
If each structure has its own prime time, prime times will be evenly spread out in order to minimize the occurrence of multiple capture events at the same time.
Choice of prime time will not be a realistic reflection of when most people are online, but it will be a purely strategic decision, geared towards annoyance and attrition; at least that's what I would do.
I would rather have the prime time of each system be determined by actual activity. Someone has already proposed a seven day rolling average measurement. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
781
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:06:28 -
[734] - Quote
JohnMonty wrote:"Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges,"
Best line in the whole thing lol That one did give me a giggle too. I'm wondering if the author was deliberately putting gags in the text to see if people were paying attension.
|
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
107
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:08:05 -
[735] - Quote
Zaporozh wrote:Its going to make Multi TZ alliance be useless since the timers will only come out at one time... ... and cause them to break up into smaller ones. Sounds like it's working as intended. |
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
189
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:08:16 -
[736] - Quote
Potential and current sov line members need a reason to care about the space. It's good that people have to be active to defend, at least in principle, but as others have outlined, so long as its easier to source income elsewhere, no one will care about actually being in sov space. Why go through all the effort to defend something I could have for free elsewhere?
Say I wanted to up my game and motivate about 120 people to go stake out a claim in what is currently renter space. We figure out where is best to attack largely based on timezone, before people begin to question the wisdom of having space; couldn't we just use FW/L4/Incursion alts to make very similar income? No matter how we are fighting, it won't really matter unless there are things to fight over. Individual systems need to be able to support more players with income competitive above Hi Sec.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1527
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:08:34 -
[737] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:How far can an interceptor target anyway? I doubt there is any fit that gets it to 250 km.
Surely if one side brings an interceptor there is nothing stopping the other side doing it too, then it is paused and no change and the interceptors chase each other until one is dead, or bring a friend, either works?
Or was there something unclear about that in the blog?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Katrin BarRiona
EASTERN BLOC Legion of xXDEATHXx
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:08:57 -
[738] - Quote
Welcome to world of spaceships? Where i can find elf 90+ lvl... Great job. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
56
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:09:51 -
[739] - Quote
The interceptor scenario is bullshit.
put your own intercepter on the sov unit and until one of your groups man up and bring a fleet it's a big circle jerk stalemate.
Or are you guys saying that your so bear minded and risk averse that you will just let interceptors reinforce all your structures that you blame ccp and call it a flawed mechanic? |
suicide
The Exit Plan Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:10:20 -
[740] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:JohnMonty wrote:"Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges,"
Best line in the whole thing lol That one did give me a giggle too. I'm wondering if the author was deliberately putting gags in the text to see if people were paying attension.
30 Day Jump Fatigue supremacy checking in. |
|
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:12:36 -
[741] - Quote
Aungverdal wrote:great work CCP. welcome to new MOBA EVE \o/
Goonswarm structures are reinforced fortified |
KelSaor
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:13:11 -
[742] - Quote
I am seeing very little reason why anyone would want to hold 0.0 sov except for the moon income. Your system makes 0.0 the riskiest place to live (which I agree it should be) but doesnt offer anything over just mission running in highsec and fighting in lowsec.
The 4 hour timer is always a bad mechanic, no in fact its terrible. Sorry guys, only one tz gets to play 0.0, the rest of you just go back to ratting or on a pointless roam.
Bye bye supers, no point to them now.
...and we all move to NPC space. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
231
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:14:23 -
[743] - Quote
Read it. Need to chew it. So far it seems Fozzie and Team Five 0 read threadnaught about sov :) It will be hard to defend empty systems. Lots of opportunities for those who want to own part of space. If this is part 2 what will be in part 3?
"...genre is a definition, the definition in itself must have boundaries, the boundaries act as barriers, and the barriers are like walls, like the walls of a prisonn++..."
The Good, The Bad and The Bantam
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1478
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:14:28 -
[744] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:How far can an interceptor target anyway? I doubt there is any fit that gets it to 250 km.
And if it does, you undock... well, pretty much anything with a T1 sov laser on it, activate it on the same thing that the interceptor is targeting, and just like that you've hard countered the interceptor.
People keep forgetting that you can counter their sov lasers with yours. You don't even need EWAR.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
130
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:17:35 -
[745] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:CCP, can you please address the point to living in null sec? I mean my logic is that because there is more risk to living in null sec there should be more reward, but as it stands this is not the case. Do you have any plans to address the gaping goatse-sized hole in the risk vs. reward proprotion of nullsec vs say high sec?
Thanks.
Yours in christ,
Aryndel Vyst Director of Personnel Operations and Logistics Goonswarm Federation
you do aroud 20-30 mil with one aacount runing lvl 4's in hi sec. You do 80+ mil with one account runing anoms in null sec.
What else would you like? |
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
62
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:17:40 -
[746] - Quote
I agree that there should be more reasons to live out of nullsec, and hopefully that will be in phase n+1.
I more or less kind of like everything but the push module and wait mechanic...
I elaborated on an idea here, to make that meaningful, that would go well with others suggesting making it a siege type thing on an earlier page: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5546663#post5546663
Harry Saq for CSM X
|
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
264
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:17:56 -
[747] - Quote
Thoirdhealbhach wrote: If each structure has its own prime time, prime times will be evenly spread out in order to minimize the occurrence of multiple capture events at the same time.
Choice of prime time will not be a realistic reflection of when most people are online, but it will be a purely strategic decision, geared towards annoyance and attrition; at least that's what I would do.
From my experience: You THINK you would do that. You will try it one or two times. Then you will see that all you will get from spreading the vulnerability timers is 24/7 CTA with no chance of defending ALL the timers because fleet morale and participation quickly goes down. (remember: you probably need a fleet on standby to keep space clean while an attacker in your off time might attack with single troll ships)
Then you will be scrambling to get all timers within a time window as small as possible. In your prime time. And people will be happy to (hopefully) get a well-dosed amount of action and fights each day before they enjoy their off time doing other stuff.
You will NOT change the time window any time a new neighbor appears or a potential threat shows up on D-Scan, because any change takes 4 days to become effective.
Guaranteering military superiority for 4 consecutive hours in your space every day is not a small thing. |
Anthar Thebess
943
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:18:07 -
[748] - Quote
So again big guys are getting head start before every thing starts.
CCP can we get something earlier? Like removing some of the timers? Let us put eve on fire a bit earlier. Pretty please
Look what happen on first changes - give people something that they can use to fight now.
Quote:Alliance:Northern Associates. From:MissMary Thornbush Sent:2015-03-03 21:16:00 http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/politics-by-other-means/ So with sov changes comeing N3 will be makeing plans to adjsut how we do things - Now before everyone has a hart attack the patch isnt till June but we have to make adjustments prior too. With this said somethings you need to be prepaird to do. 1. If you are a CAP BUILDER all building needs to stop no lator then march 30th this means finished done nothing more going into build till after we send you a update when this can be done. why- there will be some re adjusting of space and you may or may not be able to build where you currently are and or sov will change to a new alliance as we re orgnize. 2. Some renters will be asked to relocate to new rental alliances as they are formed as we re work how this is done. Atmo you have no need to stress your renter managers for your regions will contact you when and if you are effected how ever the most important part is being ready for adjustments anyone who puts a build in after this mail is fked if we decide your region is being transferd to a new alliance. So do not do it !!! Lady
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
171
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:18:42 -
[749] - Quote
and so begins the subbing of accounts.. month to month screw paying you guys months upfront.. EVER AGAIN. take your plex and stick it. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4204
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:19:16 -
[750] - Quote
I like the idea mentioned earlier, where unused systems have a wider window of vulnerability.
A heavily utilized system has only a 4 hour window of vulnerability, whereas a completely unused system might have a 12 hour window instead. I think this might be important for cross timezone assaults!
|
|
Killah Bee
Cataclysm Enterprises Nulli Secunda
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:19:23 -
[751] - Quote
Classic eve community dev blog rage.
Still no way you can put these changes in like that.
Groups like reavers will literally take regions in intie gangs while having like 0 risk.
RIP AU TZ / RUS aswell.
So I wonder what its gonna look like when you reinforce the entire const instead of just one system aswell .. gonna be like 50 beacons to claim and groups like the CFC can still just steamroll all beacons at once .. dunno how thats gonna split them apart.
and so on ...
CCP pls fix these changes.
tyvm |
Lord Parallax
Dead Pirates Syndicate
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:19:29 -
[752] - Quote
Just and Idea, since this is all about protecting a ship that is cycling some module and blowing up the ships that are counter cycling,
1. systems that are being actively contested should have a preventive measure on stations, If a entosis link is being used on the station, after the 3nd cycle is completed the station goes into lockdown, preventing anyone from docking or undocking from the station until the entosis link has been stopped or the capture is completed.
|
captain foivos
State War Academy Caldari State
265
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:20:12 -
[753] - Quote
Nullsec will remain terrible until the answer to "What is the best way to make money in Eve Online?" is not "highsec incursions." |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
171
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:20:34 -
[754] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:So again big guys are getting head start before every thing starts. CCP can we get something earlier? Like removing some of the timers? Let us put eve on fire a bit earlier Pretty please Quote:Alliance:Northern Associates. From:MissMary Thornbush Sent:2015-03-03 21:16:00 http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/politics-by-other-means/ So with sov changes comeing N3 will be makeing plans to adjsut how we do things - Now before everyone has a hart attack the patch isnt till June but we have to make adjustments prior too. With this said somethings you need to be prepaird to do. 1. If you are a CAP BUILDER all building needs to stop no lator then march 30th this means finished done nothing more going into build till after we send you a update when this can be done. why- there will be some re adjusting of space and you may or may not be able to build where you currently are and or sov will change to a new alliance as we re orgnize. 2. Some renters will be asked to relocate to new rental alliances as they are formed as we re work how this is done. Atmo you have no need to stress your renter managers for your regions will contact you when and if you are effected how ever the most important part is being ready for adjustments anyone who puts a build in after this mail is fked if we decide your region is being transferd to a new alliance. So do not do it !!! Lady
CSM did their work they're excellent puppets. what are you talking about!.. don't like it then VOTE THEM OUT! |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3186
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:22:02 -
[755] - Quote
KelSaor wrote:I am seeing very little reason why anyone would want to hold 0.0 sov except for the moon income. Your system makes 0.0 the riskiest place to live (which I agree it should be) but doesnt offer anything over just mission running in highsec and fighting in lowsec.
The 4 hour timer is always a bad mechanic, no in fact its terrible. Sorry guys, only one tz gets to play 0.0, the rest of you just go back to ratting or on a pointless roam.
Bye bye supers, no point to them now.
...and we all move to NPC space. If everyone currently in null moves out, then it will be quite easy for a small group to claim a system. And, as no one in their right mind wants sov, that small group will have no trouble holding it. All you need is a few players who "Are not quite in their right mind", and all of null is yours.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3116
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:22:25 -
[756] - Quote
I guess what's most disappointing isn't what is in this proposal, rather what is absent from it:
- Any mention of being able to upgrade your space to encourage occupancy or conquest? Nope. The same old crap anomalies with the same old flaws and limitations, encouraging nullsec players to just log into their highsec incursion alts to make money like so many do now.
- Anything that either side can do to affect the battle in between reinforcement and the capture event? Any sign of secondary objectives or side-goals to carry out while you wait? Nope. Hurry up and wait, scrubs, no fun allowed for 48 hours and god forbid you have any alliance members outside the defender's chosen timezone, they're just deadweight.
- Any suggestion of nuance or strategic decision making in attacking sov? More than one way to storm the castle? Nope. Spam ento-ceptors to get timers, wait 48 hours, alarm clock for your opponent's primetime and then derp around the constellation capturing Sov Nodes whilst Yakkity Sax plays in the background.
- Any suggestion of nuance or strategic decision making in establishing or defending sov? Nope. Grind out your indexes as best you can to get the defensive bonus, CTA for your primetime and then derp around the constellation securing Sov Nodes whilst Yakkity Sax plays in the background.
- Any real new mechanics? Nope. You've pretty much grafted FacWar onto 0.0 and called it done. You're even recycling the IHubs and TCUs and sov indeces and fixed reinforcement phase from the system we have now. Lazy, lazy, lazy. Let's not call this a new sov system, it's effectively Dominion 1.2 with the EHP grind removed.
On the bright side, this can't have taken you much more than 10 minutes for you to throw together so it won't take long to rewrite something much better!
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
130
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:22:45 -
[757] - Quote
Ryan Air wrote:
Time zones: you have created a system that will force time zones into a specific role. Either attackers or defenders. Those of us "in between" guys are being left out (I live in Alaska for instance). We will see even bigger collations (NC. EU, NC. US, NC. AU, ect) to make this work or it would pointless to be in a multi timezone alliance. A possible fix for this is to make it so corps can pick the vulnerability window, not the alliance.
Is not a curent sov the same damn thing right now? Come on....
But +1 for this corp thing, timers ashould be set by corps that hold not allaince. |
Vajrabhairava
Windrammers Black Legion.
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:23:03 -
[758] - Quote
(1) TCU can be within 50 km of a POS (2) Entosis Link (T2) has a range of 250 km (3) Jammers and Large POS weapons can reach out > 300km (4) Entosis ship cannot warp or be repped; the can presumably speed tank or burn off grid.
Post #35 discussed ceptor swarms with Entosis modules; I'm thinking at least pretty suicidal for the TCU. In fact, this could be quite difficult for many ships, and maybe even impossible for a dickstar with gunners to manage the jams (assuming Entosis requires maintenance of lock, and assuming it is possible to tell who is activating one if you are a defender.)
Perhaps it would be best to require that no TCU can be anchored in range of any POS module, and vice versa? |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:24:18 -
[759] - Quote
KelSaor wrote:I am seeing very little reason why anyone would want to hold 0.0 sov except for the moon income. Your system makes 0.0 the riskiest place to live (which I agree it should be) but doesnt offer anything over just mission running in highsec and fighting in lowsec.
The 4 hour timer is always a bad mechanic, no in fact its terrible. Sorry guys, only one tz gets to play 0.0, the rest of you just go back to ratting or on a pointless roam.
Bye bye supers, no point to them now.
...and we all move to NPC space.
Actually wormholes are the riskiest place to live. The 4 hour timer is fine. It's the reverse of no timer. It means you only get attacked at your peak time. Thats fantastic in my opinion. That way the aggressing force can't use your lack of activity in a particular timezone to their advantage.
In wspace we don't get that luxury. Somone attacks you and to maintain hole control you are in the game for 12 hours a day fighting to keep your **** after working for 8 hours. The 4 hour window will lower the divorce rate amongst eve players. |
Escuro
Disassembly workshop Out of Sight.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:24:30 -
[760] - Quote
Killah Bee wrote:
So I wonder what its gonna look like when you reinforce the entire const instead of just one system aswell .. gonna be like 50 beacons to claim and groups like the CFC can still just steamroll all beacons at once .. dunno how thats gonna split them apart.
tyvm
have 5 smaller groups, don't engage, make them rush to a single point while you capture 4 others. profit? |
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
130
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:25:48 -
[761] - Quote
captain foivos wrote:Nullsec will remain terrible until the answer to "What is the best way to make money in Eve Online?" is not "highsec incursions."
I think best thing to do with hi sec incursions is to remove them from hi sec.
Risk/reward right? move you ass to low or null for good isk, not hi sec ;/ |
Soaran Sikadi
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:27:32 -
[762] - Quote
I'd like to propose an amendment to the system. The revamp overall has me very excited, but I'm worried about the effect on off-timezone players of the declared "primetime" and the weakness of the occupancy bonuses.
Goals:
- Allow off-timezone players to participate in sovereignty warfare.
- Make the occupancy bonus more meaningful.
Let the multiplier on capture difficulty, already defined by the changes, be O (for occupancy, ranges between 1 and 4).
- Allow defenders to pick, per system, but not per structure, a (24 / O) hour window of vulnerability.
- Allow defenders to select floor(O) different 4 hour slices as reinforcement zones.
- When a structure goes into reinforce, executor corp directors have the opportunity to select one of the different slices for the structure within some number of hours of the reinforce. That timezone will have the reinforcement timer randomly rolled within it.
It's possible I've missed some obvious flaw in this plan, but it seems like this would allow off-timezone players to be able to participate without making it easy to just flip around timezones to random values, since each additional potential timezone comes with an occupancy cost. It also allows occupancy to define the battlefield rather than just giving structures the equivalent of more hitpoints. |
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
62
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:27:33 -
[763] - Quote
I do like the idea of unused systems being wide open, and the tz being narrowed down by use. The TZ thing does have the potential to overly compartmentalize, still not sure of an alternative that doesn't equal griefing and turning this into Neverest online....
Harry Saq for CSM X
|
RadiantShadow
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:28:59 -
[764] - Quote
CCP Nicely done, very very nice.
I like it.
The only thing I have is if you make it this far through the 800 whatever comments, one more vote for a bigger prime time window. At least 6 but 8 or 12 hours for any big alliance shouldn't be an issue.
Massive applause. |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1166
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:29:23 -
[765] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:I would go so far as saying any system upgraded past level 1 (so 2 and above) should give that warning, but only those, so basically if your alliance makes even a passing try at using the space you get that benefit, otherwise, your clueless about who's doing what in that wooded 10 acre lot behind your house.
More timely warnings based on sov index seems like a pretty decent benefit for owning sov. Tie it into the Strategic Index. Say a 2 minute reduction in time required per level? So at level 1, 8 minutes. At level 5, 0 minutes.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Myriad Blaze
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
352
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:29:45 -
[766] - Quote
Quote:and the Industrial Index is obtained by mining in the system. So considering the new importance of maxing defense bonuses from occupancy, how is mining for a high industrial index better than grinding structures? If I wanted to shoot rocks, I could have stayed in high-sec. At least tie the industrial index to industry maybe? Probably in the form of building/producing stuff? Maybe even consider planetary industry.
Quote:In the new Sovereignty system, each alliance will designate a four hour window through a new option available in the Corporation Management window to certain members of the alliance executor corp. This period will represent the allianceGÇÖs declared prime time, I assume the feedback so far makes it clear that (most) players think Prime Time is a bad idea. Please axe this. If you think about it for a moment, you might realize that locking out a significant portion of the playerbase from partaking in defensive ops for their alliances is a bad move, because you're denying them content. And forcing players into timezone based alliances would be silly, too.
Also I don't see how a smaller alliance could have a chance to stand against a larger alliance within the new system. It seems it would be possible to just hellcamp the defender with a fleet of mains, have a two or three groups in fast ships ready to deal with stragglers, while using cheap throwaway alts in (relatively) cheap ships to zip around and reinforce ALL sov structures of the defending alliance in one sweep.
J'Poll:
EVE doesn't hand out cookies to you.
EVE kicks you down, steals your cookie and then laughs at you for bringing a cookie in the first place.
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
133
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:29:49 -
[767] - Quote
Lord Parallax wrote:Just and Idea, since this is all about protecting a ship that is cycling some module and blowing up the ships that are counter cycling,
1. systems that are being actively contested should have a preventive measure on stations, If a entosis link is being used on the station, after the 3nd cycle is completed the station goes into lockdown, preventing anyone from docking or undocking from the station until the entosis link has been stopped or the capture is completed.
Meh easy to counter, just one dude use link and every one dock.
And not beeing able to undock -_-'' for real mate? |
Dixie Mason
ZERO TAX MERCS
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:30:14 -
[768] - Quote
Have to admit I am very please to see changes and overall I really like those. Here is my ideas to address most common issues with the current propositions.
It's obvious that main problem with the new SOV system is compulsory division of alliances into narrow TZ based entities. While I understand the need to make it easier sov warfare for "small guys" we have to look at big multinational alliances too.
So it would be logical to extend "Prime time" based on number of constellation where SOV is held. Base value remain same for 1 constellation but any additional system in other constellation would add 2 more hours of prime time. As an example: if alliance have systems with SOV over it in 2 constellation prime time will be 6 hours. If Brave have SOV in 14 constellations prime time will 24 hours. This will force alliances to more strategic placement of SOV system but if alliance feels strong enough to defend around the clock let them.
Proposed mediocre activity based model lacks both rewards for active SOV owners as well as negative impact in deserted systems for attacker. If CCP is forcing to live everybody closer and share same space it would be logical to greatly expand PVE anomalies or introduce some new capital/supers targeted sites in upgraded systems. As a side result it will make living in 0.0 more risk/reward balanced. From the other hand attacker don't get anything if he attacks literally deserted system with zero activity. This should be addressed by making SOV capture even more easier by removing second timer and sending no notification to defenders (if you dont know your system is reinforced mby you don't need it).
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5762
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:31:39 -
[769] - Quote
"Prime Time" is just CCP's way of saying "**** you, Australia", right?
Here's a suggestion:
- Ditch the "prime time" concept. It's just another feature you'll be scrapping six months down the track
- Ditch the "Entosis" module since you'll just be replacing it with hacking or removing it completely down the track
- Structures are vulnerable all the time
- Command nodes are always spawned randomly through the constellation once the structure is built (no reinforcement timer related mechanics, no fancy new hacking-but-not-hacking mechanism)
- Balance spawn rate of command nodes so that attackers/defenders need to be active throughout the entire day
- "winning" the command node competition is based on the current Incursion style influence bar, with influence for each structure of interest
- Command nodes have multiple sizes, just like Incursion or FW sites
- Command node sites can be anomalies, ore, relic, data or beacon sites
- Harder-to-find or harder-to-beat command nodes are worth more influence
- Sov owner can influence command node sizes through deployment of specific IHUB upgrades, only one of each allowed per constellation, which can nominate one system to be small/medium/large encounters, so an alliance that favours frigate combat can anchor a "Small Command Anchor" in their HQ system to ensure that the important fights end up being in frigates
- PVP kills in that constellation count towards all influence bars for all structures
Note that you have no built-in time-out on the capture process using the funky link things. If I and my opponent can manage to keep links active on the structure, the contest will never end. Welcome to the world of fleet boosted maximum-EHP titans duking it out, with each side having 10 minutes to chew through a few million EHP. Whoever has N+1 replacement buffer titans wins.
This way a small Australian corp can still harass a large nullsec alliance that is strong in US time zone, perhaps flying interceptor fleets and engaging any/all small command sites, or infiltrating a large number of covops frigates to engage all the data/relic command sites in unconventional warfare.
The defenders maintain their influence by simply killing the invaders (PVP adjusts all influence bars), or by running command node sites themselves.
Oh, and push ore sites back into the exploration system rather than the anomaly system.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Random Interrupt
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:32:46 -
[770] - Quote
I read the post and read/skimmed over all 39 pages of this thread. I haven't seen anything to change my mind from my initial take on this.
Prime time needs adjusting for sure. Many corps and alliances are multi-time zone. I highly doubt many alliances, even small ones, exist in a single time zone.
Aside from that overall I'm excited about the changes. It's definitely a great start. |
|
Aram Kachaturian
Verge of Collapse
164
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:33:03 -
[771] - Quote
Thanks for those changes CCP Fozzie.
Great features and I'm glad to see that this game is heading an honourable way.
By the way, I'm on the internet since 1997 and I've never seen such amount of tears.
That's beautiful and atrocious at the same time.
You redefined mordern art and the future of the web.
Thanks to everyone.
"A remnant of the time long past.
Wielder of the Flame of Ballin', Ruler of the Monocle Clubhouse, Skymarshal on a Cosmic Level & Owner of the Wisdom of Kings: The French Prince."
|
Tyanshe
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:33:18 -
[772] - Quote
Looks good to me. All the crying is by babies who want easy isk and no effort in null.
|
KelSaor
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:33:19 -
[773] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:KelSaor wrote:I am seeing very little reason why anyone would want to hold 0.0 sov except for the moon income. Your system makes 0.0 the riskiest place to live (which I agree it should be) but doesnt offer anything over just mission running in highsec and fighting in lowsec.
The 4 hour timer is always a bad mechanic, no in fact its terrible. Sorry guys, only one tz gets to play 0.0, the rest of you just go back to ratting or on a pointless roam.
Bye bye supers, no point to them now.
...and we all move to NPC space. Actually wormholes are the riskiest place to live. The 4 hour timer is fine. It's the reverse of no timer. It means you only get attacked at your peak time. Thats fantastic in my opinion. That way the aggressing force can't use your lack of activity in a particular timezone to their advantage. In wspace we don't get that luxury. Somone attacks you and to maintain hole control you are in the game for 12 hours a day fighting to keep your **** after working for 8 hours. The 4 hour window will lower the divorce rate amongst eve players.
I'll concede on WH having more risk, but sorry still disagree about the timer and 0.0 being worth it.
When you are flying with an alliance that has 1000s of pilots, 1 TZ will be on constant guard for sov fights, the other 2 wont. As I suspect my alliance/allies will pick US tz I doubt I'll even see much sov action. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
521
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:33:52 -
[774] - Quote
what is really unclear is if the Entosis link module cycle forces a target lock to hold regardless of anything.
For example, many modules have a cycle time that requires a lock to activate, and continues cycling even if that lock fails due to ewar / ecm or other factors like drifting out of lock range.
So we still don't really know if this module needs the lock to be retained throughout its cycle else it fails to apply its effect to the Structure? Or if the effects of the module on the ship using it retains even if the lock is broken? (ie can we warp off if the lock breaks but the cycle is still continuing?)
...as you can tell, many grey areas and requirements to clarify the module and its mechanics still. |
Escuro
Disassembly workshop Out of Sight.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:33:57 -
[775] - Quote
Myriad Blaze wrote: Also I don't see how a smaller alliance could have a chance to stand against a larger alliance within the new system. It seems it would be possible to just hellcamp the defender with a fleet of mains, have a two or three groups in fast ships ready to deal with stragglers, while using cheap throwaway alts in (relatively) cheap ships to zip around and reinforce ALL sov structures of the defending alliance in one sweep.
it's a chance to zerg-rush a big bad alliance by smaller ones in different parts of space. you don't need a cap-blob to gain sov with this mechanic, so just get a roam going - no one is capable defending 3-5 consts at once. |
BoomBoss
Void Experiments Void..
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:34:29 -
[776] - Quote
Seems nice, i was dissapointed though there is no Sansha mom to be defeated to end the 'nulcursion'. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1112
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:34:51 -
[777] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:KelSaor wrote:I am seeing very little reason why anyone would want to hold 0.0 sov except for the moon income. Your system makes 0.0 the riskiest place to live (which I agree it should be) but doesnt offer anything over just mission running in highsec and fighting in lowsec.
The 4 hour timer is always a bad mechanic, no in fact its terrible. Sorry guys, only one tz gets to play 0.0, the rest of you just go back to ratting or on a pointless roam.
Bye bye supers, no point to them now.
...and we all move to NPC space. Actually wormholes are the riskiest place to live. The 4 hour timer is fine. It's the reverse of no timer. It means you only get attacked at your peak time. Thats fantastic in my opinion. That way the aggressing force can't use your lack of activity in a particular timezone to their advantage. In wspace we don't get that luxury. Somone attacks you and to maintain hole control you are in the game for 12 hours a day fighting to keep your **** after working for 8 hours. The 4 hour window will lower the divorce rate amongst eve players.
Quoting for the truth about divorce rates.
Yaay!!!!
|
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:36:35 -
[778] - Quote
#1 I hope this is a VERY basic idea going around, because it's extremely poorly thoughout. #2 Why bother keeping space? #3 Another slap to supercarriers... last thing to do was structure fighter bomber bashing or repping, gone! #4 Here comes fleet of cov-ops going around trolling stations...
Well that was dissapointing...
Can my supers dock now? At least i can station-spin them... Maybe use their fitting service since station services are going to be near-perma disabled... |
KelSaor
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:38:41 -
[779] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:#1 I hope this is a VERY basic idea going around, because it's extremely poorly thoughout. #2 Why bother keeping space? #3 Another slap to supercarriers... last thing to do was structure fighter bomber bashing or repping, gone! #4 Here comes fleet of cov-ops going around trolling stations...
Well that was dissapointing...
Can my supers dock now? At least i can station-spin them... Maybe use their fitting service since station services are going to be near-perma disabled... #1 its ccp........ #2 moon income, thats it #3 Pretty much #4 yup |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
521
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:42:53 -
[780] - Quote
Also this is a nice copy+paste style point capture mechanic lifted from Planetside 2 and dumped into Eve, you do realise it works well in Planetside due to no cooldown or cost/limiting factor to choosing your defensive respawning location and re-engaging in fights over contested points right?
|
|
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
695
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:43:46 -
[781] - Quote
I approve.
I will be pissing all over sov holders in every null exit I find down the chain.
Turning off stations? you bet!! |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1114
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:44:35 -
[782] - Quote
Killah Bee wrote:Classic eve community dev blog rage.
Still no way you can put these changes in like that.
Groups like reavers will literally take regions in intie gangs while having like 0 risk.
RIP AU TZ / RUS aswell.
So I wonder what its gonna look like when you reinforce the entire const instead of just one system aswell .. gonna be like 50 beacons to claim and groups like the CFC can still just steamroll all beacons at once .. dunno how thats gonna split them apart.
and so on ...
CCP pls fix these changes.
tyvm
So if the cfc rolls into the drone region and reinforces stuff.... Really so what. If you had that much to begin with with no way to defend it, then what the hell are you doing there with all that wasted space? Cfc claims it, doesn't defend it, you get it back.
The tug of war continues.
Basically, shrink your empire into something defendable by your core groups. Owning 200 systems, 3+ regions and defending them with jump drive supers, bridging Titans and gangs across the map is over. Fights are now regional, constellation based or even just a few systems. The need for 100 cap steamroll armada is over. Now will they be able to go about and steamroll anyway? Sure.
Will there be a viable point in doing that? That's where I think they got this proposal right. Throwing everybody into 1 system is pointless. Spread the people out, but not so thinly or so far away from home that you yourself cannot defend it. You can't defend renters now. The threats dead. Will people still rent, sure. Will moongoo still matter, yes. You may own the moon but you won't own the home.
I applaud both CCP and the CSM for taking these steps. There is still more to go.
Yaay!!!!
|
PorkCleaner
The Ascended Academy
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:45:17 -
[783] - Quote
A couple of points:
BAD 1) Been touched on a lot but needs to be re-iterated non-stop. Please give null-sec sov owners a better incentive to want null in the first place. The reduction in pos fuel is not even close to enough. 2) Too hard to get level 4/5 industry atm. Where as it is much easier to get level 5 military. 3) If you are not that worried about station services (any POS dweller has become used to that) then how does this motivate people to fight on any other time (beyond transfer one)? 4) clearly CCP wants to merry the benefits of PVE with benefits in PVP but in my opinion there are not enough. Why not give system more optional effects like in wh's with specific upgrade packages - the variety of fleet comps to suit system upgrades could make life very interesting? 5) Not sure how this deals with renting. If a renter now wants to revolt - only the distance from landlord determines that possibility? How will this effect a possible revolt? since he belongs to the alliance he can't. He has too quit first. 6) Giving the sov holder the ability to choose his TZ was meant to give an incentive and home advantage but doesn't it make it impossible as well for the attacker if it is in AUZ time zone for example?
NOT SURE 1) Did you intend to nerf Supers and Dreads? I don't see how they are used in sov change anymore and since they suck 'at pvp that is meant to be spread out'...This is a nail in the coffin for the Superclass. First they can't easily move, and now take away their purpose! Maybe that is the intent. 2) Is this not going to motivate the creation of super alliances? Since only members of the holding alliance can defend sov. Why does Mittens now not just order all his plebs to join the Goons? Is that the intent?
GOOD 1) The multiplier of levels to the sov transfer ease. 2) More can be a part of the process. 3) Removes the grind of structures. 4) Brings constellation back into game. 5) Allows for better planning by Alliance with new UI. 6) Love the freeport idea. 7) Love the fact you have the balls to actually tinker with this.
REQUEST I would love to know how the CSM voted on this. in a democracy knowing how people actually performed is more important then how often they smile or blogg.
Porky |
The Devoid
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:48:56 -
[784] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well taking advice from the null posters who did everything within their power to troll up the Hyperion thread for wormhole space, and like them I know less than jack**** about your area of space, I must be uniquely qualified to pontificate about null changes.
Seems like an excellent series of changes.
Is it too early to utter the immortal cry "HTFU"? Too soon?
Phase Three of our Nullsec changes: WH can be claimed :trollface: |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1166
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:48:59 -
[785] - Quote
I have an idea.
The Prime Time thing will hurt multi-TZ alliances and not in a way that is good for customer relations or player retention.
What about being able to set a timer on each constellation? In this way, a large alliance with a multi-TZ player base can still generate content across all their players' timezones if they so choose, while a small alliance with only one constellation or less will have only a single timezone to defend.
The already announced change delay mechanic will prevent an alliance from rotating their timers across timezones just to frustrate attackers. It would promote player interaction, thought, actions, and consequences, rather than just reading the timer from an info screen and blitzing everything in one go with a thousand Rifters.
I understand this might be more difficult to make happen. But I think it's worth the effort.
Regardless of whether or not you accept my suggestion, I don't think these timers should not be public knowledge. Free intel is bad, m'kay? (ie: free perfect local chat intel) Important defensive details should be a closely held secret. Only with effort should an attacker be able to get that information.
Ofc, this would not preclude a spy from getting the information. This is the sort of meta-gaming that Eve Online is famous for and is perfectly viable in the new system.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:49:16 -
[786] - Quote
Reading all those pages ...
I would like to State this Again Sov Link Module Should ba banned on Interceptors and all ships that can use covops cloaks |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1531
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:49:16 -
[787] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Killah Bee wrote:Classic eve community dev blog rage.
Still no way you can put these changes in like that.
Groups like reavers will literally take regions in intie gangs while having like 0 risk.
RIP AU TZ / RUS aswell.
So I wonder what its gonna look like when you reinforce the entire const instead of just one system aswell .. gonna be like 50 beacons to claim and groups like the CFC can still just steamroll all beacons at once .. dunno how thats gonna split them apart.
and so on ...
CCP pls fix these changes.
tyvm So if the cfc rolls into the drone region and reinforces stuff.... Really so what. If you had that much to begin with with no way to defend it, then what the hell are you doing there with all that wasted space? Cfc claims it, doesn't defend it, you get it back. The tug of war continues. Basically, shrink your empire into something defendable by your core groups. Owning 200 systems, 3+ regions and defending them with jump drive supers, bridging Titans and gangs across the map is over. Fights are now regional, constellation based or even just a few systems. The need for 100 cap steamroll armada is over. Now will they be able to go about and steamroll anyway? Sure. Will there be a viable point in doing that? That's where I think they got this proposal right. Throwing everybody into 1 system is pointless. Spread the people out, but not so thinly or so far away from home that you yourself cannot defend it. You can't defend renters now. The threats dead. Will people still rent, sure. Will moongoo still matter, yes. You may own the moon but you won't own the home. I applaud both CCP and the CSM for taking these steps. There is still more to go.
Yes, and mobile syphons will be delivered from every available wormhole with our best wishes :) And I doubt we will be able to resist flipping a few stations just for fun, in those quiet places where only the bots go.......
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:49:27 -
[788] - Quote
Funny thing is, all the isk space will still be taken. Cfc can defend their moons with capfleets and any system of worth will keep it's original occupiers.
Just all the 0.0-0.1 **** space that no one gives a **** about will change hands, bankrupting those who invest in it.
The more I look, the more ******** these changes are. |
Diemos Hiaraki
Perkone Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:50:14 -
[789] - Quote
This is a lot to take in at once, and sadly I'm not enthused by what I've seen because it isn't long enough; there's obviously stuff missing like a valid reason to bother holding sov in the first place. On it's own this blog is borderline trolling imo and I'm actually annoyed this blog didn't come out before the CSM voting process began.
The only feedback I can give is that as a rank and file alliance member I'd be extremely concerned that I'd be expected to be on cleanup detail all of my play time with no way of earning an income. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1005
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:50:20 -
[790] - Quote
Cheyennes wrote:MiliasColds wrote:a note for out of timezone players (from declared prime time)
you still raise indices which makes things easier to defend. you can still help with capture events that are ongoing past prime time. you can be useful attacking other alliances whose prime time aligns with your TZ you can assist allies you can contribute to general logistics you can attrack and reinforces POS and stations services
doesn't seem like nothing to me In other words, you are relegated to all the crap work, while the rest of eve enjoys PvP..... No thanks Then form your own alliance and set your own prime time...
This is Eve, nobody is going to hold your hand and do it for you... it's time to grow a pair and do it yourself. |
|
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:50:21 -
[791] - Quote
KelSaor wrote:d0cTeR9 wrote:#1 I hope this is a VERY basic idea going around, because it's extremely poorly thoughout. #2 Why bother keeping space? #3 Another slap to supercarriers... last thing to do was structure fighter bomber bashing or repping, gone! #4 Here comes fleet of cov-ops going around trolling stations...
Well that was dissapointing...
Can my supers dock now? At least i can station-spin them... Maybe use their fitting service since station services are going to be near-perma disabled... #1 its ccp........ #2 moon income, thats it #3 Pretty much #4 yup
then its ready to implement, ship it tomorrow! |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10027
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:51:29 -
[792] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Aryndel Vyst wrote:CCP, can you please address the point to living in null sec? I mean my logic is that because there is more risk to living in null sec there should be more reward, but as it stands this is not the case. Do you have any plans to address the gaping goatse-sized hole in the risk vs. reward proprotion of nullsec vs say high sec?
Thanks.
Yours in christ,
Aryndel Vyst Director of Personnel Operations and Logistics Goonswarm Federation you do aroud 20-30 mil with one aacount runing lvl 4's in hi sec. You do 80+ mil with one account runing anoms in null sec. What else would you like? \ That's just a flat out lie, damn near broke the internet with that one, I make 90+ mil an hour simply living in Osmon flying a Rattlesnake doing Sisters of EVE lvl 4s. Hell, you can do better than that in lvl 3 missions. and I don't own an Incursion Vindicator in high sec with a 5 billion isk fit to make less than I could in null.
You must not PVE much.
|
Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:51:30 -
[793] - Quote
Dixie Mason wrote: So it would be logical to extend "Prime time" based on number of constellation where SOV is held. Base value remain same for 1 constellation but any additional system in other constellation would add 2 more hours of prime time. As an example: if alliance have systems with SOV over it in 2 constellation prime time will be 6 hours. If Brave have SOV in 14 constellations prime time will 24 hours. This will force alliances to more strategic placement of SOV system but if alliance feels strong enough to defend around the clock let them.
I support this notion. There should be diminishing returns to gobbling up more sov. This will make the big guys think carefully before expanding... is it worth it to make all of your systems more vulnerable just to grab one more that you aren't sure you need?
|
Green Medics
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:51:37 -
[794] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I like the idea mentioned earlier, where unused systems have a wider window of vulnerability.
A heavily utilized system has only a 4 hour window of vulnerability, whereas a completely unused system might have a 12 hour window instead. I think this might be important for cross timezone assaults!
there is defiantly a problem with the suggested mechanic ccp brought us. we need flexibility for tzs that are not the main two to be able to have a chance to take sov. 4 hours is just not enough. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:51:48 -
[795] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:and so begins the subbing of accounts.. month to month screw paying you guys months upfront.. EVER AGAIN. take your plex and stick it.
Why dont you like the changes? |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
474
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:51:51 -
[796] - Quote
I hope activating these links will give a 15m "capsuleer combat" log off timer. Otherwise you know, this could get stupid. Almost as stupid as 30km/s infini-kite svipul. |
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:52:01 -
[797] - Quote
Quote:These Command Nodes will be visible through the anomaly scanner, sensor overlay and overview, and will be clearly named after the structure that they apply to. Capturing a Command Node follows exactly the same process as reinforcing a structure, with players competing to make progress towards capture by applying Entosis Links to the Command Node structure. - Factional warfare... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1531
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:52:14 -
[798] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Reading all those pages ... I would like to State this Again Sov Link Module Should ba banned on Interceptors and all ships that can use covops cloaks
Correct me if I am wrong but I did not see anything preventing any sov holder from countering an interceptor with another interceptor, depriving them of their ability to switch control.
Or is there some reason why you are not able to counter interceptors?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:52:59 -
[799] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Funny thing is, all the isk space will still be taken. Cfc can defend their moons with capfleets and any system of worth will keep it's original occupiers.
Just all the 0.0-0.1 **** space that no one gives a **** about will change hands, bankrupting those who invest in it.
The more I look, the more ******** these changes are.
I am amazed how people don't know the real value of null sec. It's amazing how igorant you people are.
And there are Dozens of very good sov in drone regions that will not be defended ......
making 200 mil+ per hour in Providence (carpy sov?) no no problem, you people are just too lazy to think. |
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
696
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:53:29 -
[800] - Quote
Devs, make sure you cant fit entosis links to frigates.
Intys, cov ops, bombers, nano dessys.... Thats bit too easy for griefers to exploit.
Let it be on cruiser and above hulls only. |
|
Dave Stark
7404
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:54:34 -
[801] - Quote
no, i haven't read the thread.
if i'm not repeating something that has already been said; i'll be shocked.
the prime time idea is ******* horrible.
oh look, that's an australian corp owning that station.... i'll just take a half day off work so i can capture their sov? (or wake up at 3-4am if i'm unfortunate enough to be an american).
are you serious? you want me to book days off work and/or lose sleep to be able to participate in sov warfare? |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1115
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:55:01 -
[802] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Funny thing is, all the isk space will still be taken. Cfc can defend their moons with capfleets and any system of worth will keep it's original occupiers.
Just all the 0.0-0.1 **** space that no one gives a **** about will change hands, bankrupting those who invest in it.
The more I look, the more ******** these changes are.
Except you forget about this whole drifter thing. Their consolidation on the heat map is in all that crap space nobody wants.
That space is about to become A LOT less crappy.
Yaay!!!!
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2061
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:55:06 -
[803] - Quote
PorkCleaner wrote:A couple of points:
BAD 1) Been touched on a lot but needs to be re-iterated non-stop. Please give null-sec sov owners a better incentive to want null in the first place. The reduction in pos fuel is not even close to enough. 2) Too hard to get level 4/5 industry atm. Where as it is much easier to get level 5 military. 3) If you are not that worried about station services (any POS dweller has become used to that) then how does this motivate people to fight on any other time (beyond transfer one)? 4) clearly CCP wants to merry the benefits of PVE with benefits in PVP but in my opinion there are not enough. Why not give system more optional effects like in wh's with specific upgrade packages - the variety of fleet comps to suit system upgrades could make life very interesting? 5) Not sure how this deals with renting. If a renter now wants to revolt - only the distance from landlord determines that possibility? How will this effect a possible revolt? since he belongs to the alliance he can't. He has too quit first. 6) Giving the sov holder the ability to choose his TZ was meant to give an incentive and home advantage but doesn't it make it impossible as well for the attacker if it is in AUZ time zone for example?
NOT SURE 1) Did you intend to nerf Supers and Dreads? I don't see how they are used in sov change anymore and since they suck 'at pvp that is meant to be spread out'...This is a nail in the coffin for the Superclass. First they can't easily move, and now take away their purpose! Maybe that is the intent. 2) Is this not going to motivate the creation of super alliances? Since only members of the holding alliance can defend sov. Why does Mittens now not just order all his plebs to join the Goons? Is that the intent?
GOOD 1) The multiplier of levels to the sov transfer ease. 2) More can be a part of the process. 3) Removes the grind of structures. 4) Brings constellation back into game. 5) Allows for better planning by Alliance with new UI. 6) Love the freeport idea. 7) Love the fact you have the balls to actually tinker with this.
REQUEST I would love to know how the CSM voted on this. in a democracy, knowing how people actually performed is more important then how often they smile or blog.
Porky
Make having sov mean you get mission agents... The higher lev occupancy the better agents come to your territory. If you have sov but no outpost you get ded agents at stargates like in delve. If you own a outpost tge agents will be found in the outpost. Also maybe make sov mean access to captial assembly array
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:55:59 -
[804] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Reading all those pages ... I would like to State this Again Sov Link Module Should ba banned on Interceptors and all ships that can use covops cloaks Correct me if I am wrong but I did not see anything preventing any sov holder from countering an interceptor with another interceptor, depriving them of their ability to switch control. Or is there some reason why you are not able to counter interceptors?
it's not about counter on grid, it's about the move very fast across space and you can't tackle them right now, if they are semi travel fit.
Soo you can't tackle the people and they can just jump few systems away and troll there.
or fleet of 20 interceptors troling the whole region, coz they can and it's very easy to run, and imposible to tackle if they don't wona get tackled :<
Thats way. you can't gate camp them, you can't do any thing to them if they are smart. It's completly OP |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1532
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:56:21 -
[805] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Devs, make sure you cant fit entosis links to frigates.
Intys, cov ops, bombers, nano dessys.... Thats bit too easy for griefers to exploit.
Let it be on cruiser and above hulls only.
I think the idea is that some attempt is made to counter the challenge, not to provide easy kills so one can get back to ratting quickly.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
171
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:56:47 -
[806] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:and so begins the subbing of accounts.. month to month screw paying you guys months upfront.. EVER AGAIN. take your plex and stick it. Why dont you like the changes?
cause ccp cant even figure out why folks play this game. look at it's history they fail at player retention. it may be harsh and its true. a lot of us right now are pissed off to the fullest. we have cap pilots now sitting in huge paperweights (haha bet you wish you could dock now right).. yet ccp cant understand why folks refuse to pay alittle longer..
plus I am sick of those surveys they send out, its pretty blatant they don't pay attention to it..just like feedback threads.. oops did I say that.. no fawks given.
this whole change would be better suited for Low-Sec and not Null-sec cause its understandable the scope of fixing null is so difficult that they CCP do not want to spend any further time dealing with it.
now i'll wait and give them pennies instead of full dollars just incase they cant figure out why im no longer biting at their carrot they love to dangle. |
SoulLess Zealot
IceBox Inc. Lasers Are Magic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:57:11 -
[807] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
To recap:
1st phase we made it impossible to project force.
2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.
yea thats the idea. if you can handle a bunch of "scrub newbie alts" you didn't really deserve it in the first place. sorry you cant sit back ,rat and drop supers on anything that tries to contest you.
im glad ccp has turned null sec from a niche lag grind into something more fun and meaningful. something that is actualy worthy of the revere! |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1532
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:57:55 -
[808] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Reading all those pages ... I would like to State this Again Sov Link Module Should ba banned on Interceptors and all ships that can use covops cloaks Correct me if I am wrong but I did not see anything preventing any sov holder from countering an interceptor with another interceptor, depriving them of their ability to switch control. Or is there some reason why you are not able to counter interceptors? it's not about counter on grid, it's about the move very fast across space and you can't tackle them right now, if they are semi travel fit. Soo you can't tackle the people and they can just jump few systems away and troll there. or fleet of 20 interceptors troling the whole region, coz they can and it's very easy to run, and imposible to tackle if they don't wona get tackled :< Thats way. you can't gate camp them, you can't do any thing to them if they are smart. It's completly OP
But you can counter them at the timer, effort needs to be taken LOCALLY to defend, relying on distant friends is no longer an option. I believe that is the whole point.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Theodoric Darkwind
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
319
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:58:29 -
[809] - Quote
Escuro wrote: it's a chance to zerg-rush a big bad alliance by smaller ones in different parts of space. you don't need a cap-blob to gain sov with this mechanic, so just get a roam going - no one is capable defending 3-5 consts at once.
The CFC and possibly BRAVE or Provibloc, could defend against something like that.
This initial model is very unbalanced in favor of huge entities with lots of warm bodies who actually live in their space like the CFC and also BRAVE and Provibloc to a lesser extent.
The main losers in this model are the smaller entities who rely on supercap muscle and vast renter empires to hold space like N3 and PL. This model would very quickly spell the end of NA. and B0T.
Making Interceptors the primary ship for sov warfare also makes zero sense, not to mention all the abuse this will see from cofessors/svipls and 100mn Tengus/Proteii.
|
Hibernator X
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:59:50 -
[810] - Quote
A 4 hour time frame is a pretty bad idea, basically you are putting many players in a situation where they can't fly for their Alliance/friends and are forced to look elsewhere for content. For some people that might not be a big deal but telling the guy who you've been flying with for years that his timezone relegates him to a less meaningful role in the alliance won't go over well with a lot of people.
It's a strange idea for a developer to put a system in place that meta games a player's personal life and circumstances. It's way too exclusionary of a system in it's current form. I'm all for granular sov but when you can potentially tear apart groups of players who have developed RL connections, and potentially all but snuff out less popular timezones for the most cited selling activity of the game it's not a good solution. |
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:00:14 -
[811] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Devs, make sure you cant fit entosis links to frigates.
Intys, cov ops, bombers, nano dessys.... Thats bit too easy for griefers to exploit.
Let it be on cruiser and above hulls only.
Yep ***** noob ships inties and covops alt's taking sov, for real.
it should be at lest some hussle, t1 cruisers at least.
Or every timers will be floded by cheap crap frig orbiting the sov structures at 250 km ......... |
Escuro
Disassembly workshop Out of Sight.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:00:14 -
[812] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Devs, make sure you cant fit entosis links to frigates.
Intys, cov ops, bombers, nano dessys.... Thats bit too easy for griefers to exploit.
Let it be on cruiser and above hulls only. tell me how. Activating the link will prohibit you from cloaking, warping etc. You can fit an inty to lock up to 120-130km. This can be countered with a LOT of stuff. Also, you can just use your own link and don't bother at all. |
Escuro
Disassembly workshop Out of Sight.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:01:14 -
[813] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Devs, make sure you cant fit entosis links to frigates.
Intys, cov ops, bombers, nano dessys.... Thats bit too easy for griefers to exploit.
Let it be on cruiser and above hulls only. Yep ***** noob ships inties and covops alt's taking sov, for real. it should be at lest some hussle, t1 cruisers at least. Or every timers will be floded by cheap crap frig orbiting the sov structures at 250 km ......... you need to LOCK ON to the TCU first. And with a 2m cycle you stay there for 12 minutes at minimum. |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:03:28 -
[814] - Quote
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:Escuro wrote: it's a chance to zerg-rush a big bad alliance by smaller ones in different parts of space. you don't need a cap-blob to gain sov with this mechanic, so just get a roam going - no one is capable defending 3-5 consts at once.
The CFC and possibly BRAVE or Provibloc, could defend against something like that. This initial model is very unbalanced in favor of huge entities with lots of warm bodies who actually live in their space like the CFC and also BRAVE and Provibloc to a lesser extent. The main losers in this model are the smaller entities who rely on supercap muscle and vast renter empires to hold space like N3 and PL. This model would very quickly spell the end of NA. and B0T. Making Interceptors the primary ship for sov warfare also makes zero sense, not to mention all the abuse this will see from cofessors/svipls and 100mn Tengus/Proteii.
Oh don't worry about Tengu Protei, and F*** the AFK epires, The warm bodies it's what it whould it be about. you defend space you live in, not have 9999 other sytems just coz you can ;/
But inties, dessies and covops will be a problem, they will be abuse, so let's just get rid of it now. |
Capt Tenguru79
Mass Production
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:03:49 -
[815] - Quote
Escuro wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Devs, make sure you cant fit entosis links to frigates.
Intys, cov ops, bombers, nano dessys.... Thats bit too easy for griefers to exploit.
Let it be on cruiser and above hulls only. tell me how. Activating the link will prohibit you from cloaking, warping etc. You can fit an inty to lock up to 120-130km. This can be countered with a LOT of stuff. Also, you can just use your own link and don't bother at all. Actually you can get a crow to lock up to 175k with implants and passive boost, and have a MWD. have not checked with links yet but most certainly about 220-230k |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1532
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:03:51 -
[816] - Quote
Escuro wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Devs, make sure you cant fit entosis links to frigates.
Intys, cov ops, bombers, nano dessys.... Thats bit too easy for griefers to exploit.
Let it be on cruiser and above hulls only. tell me how. Activating the link will prohibit you from cloaking, warping etc. You can fit an inty to lock up to 120-130km. This can be countered with a LOT of stuff. Also, you can just use your own link and don't bother at all.
Clearly the attempt to make it so small ships cannot be used is an attempt to undo what CCP are trying to achieve. They still want to trap ships far from the target so they do not have to deploy locally to deal with the issue. And slow ships will give easy kills, and nothing changes.
The message will sink in eventually.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4781
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:04:01 -
[817] - Quote
Need to think much more before giving feedback as to the overall direction.
However, two small points.
1) Mining and ratting should be able to substitute for each other. This system makes doing both extremely important to holding sov. Let players do the one they prefer rather than providing mechanical advantages to splitting your effort 50/50 between the two.
2) Entosis links will be frequently destroyed and so should drive an enormous amount of industrial production. Crius (for all of its successes) had one enormous failure in that it reduced the gamewide demand for production line hours and science line hours.
I propose that you make Entosis Links take a considerable amount of time to produce (of the order 4 production hours for a T1, 36 science hours and 16 production hours for a T2 assuming skills all at 4, station services and no decryptor being used) to help address this.
This will help address some of the economic issues caused by Crius's increased production throughput.
Some numbers that would achieve this ballpark:
Base production time: 6 hours Entosis Link 1, 24 hours EL 2 Base invention %: 30 Base copy time: 6 hours EL 1 Invention time: 6 hours EL 1 Base BPC max runs: 720 (EL1), 1 (EL2)
Finally, EL2s should be produced with something that marks them out as 'different' to other production, and that favors building them in nullsec. I propose a Megacyte-heavy basket of minerals for EL1s, and an EL1 plus 250 of each racial Processor for EL2s.
(Edit: 250, not 2500. You have a math degree IRL Sabriz, don't be an idiot)
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
106
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:04:15 -
[818] - Quote
So what's gonna happen the first time that CFC have a massive blob fight going on: 99% of the rest of their sov gets reinforced by troll fleets in the time it takes to cycle their guns once in Tidi....
The more I think about this, the more I like it. |
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:05:37 -
[819] - Quote
Everyone's complaining about the timezone mechanic, but to it actually sounds like a good idea. Who doesn't want to have guaranteed PVP every day during their prime time?
The changes sound like they want Null-Sec to be more engulfed in PVP on a more regular basis instead of just the super blob fights that happen, as well as a tug of war game with systems instead of the same people holding the same systems, all of which are empty.
I look forward to how this develops further. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
106
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:05:38 -
[820] - Quote
Capt Tenguru79 wrote:Actually you can get a crow to lock up to 175k with implants and passive boost, and have a MWD. have not checked with links yet but most certainly about 220-230k And it's still countered by an atron sat at 0 with a link of its own... |
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:06:05 -
[821] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:My question for the new sov mechanics, what will happen to Ihub build cost and size? I don't suppose you can make them small enough to fit in a jump freighter? It would have the benefit of allowing smaller alliances an easier path to put them in. And for combat, it puts a very expensive freighter (jf) at risk.
atm unless your system you wish to have an ihub is close to a station, the preferred method is bridge the freighter with a Titan. It you make the iHUB 350k or so..then a Jump Freighter could be used instead.
Likewise I would like to see all the upgrades installed fit in a jump freighter. People complain jf pilots take no risks and only jump to station. If you make this change..then additional risks will be taken with jf by those not large or rich enough to own titans.
+1 on this, all upgrades should fit in jf, no more than 300k M3.
|
Escuro
Disassembly workshop Out of Sight.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:07:41 -
[822] - Quote
Capt Tenguru79 wrote:Escuro wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Devs, make sure you cant fit entosis links to frigates.
Intys, cov ops, bombers, nano dessys.... Thats bit too easy for griefers to exploit.
Let it be on cruiser and above hulls only. tell me how. Activating the link will prohibit you from cloaking, warping etc. You can fit an inty to lock up to 120-130km. This can be countered with a LOT of stuff. Also, you can just use your own link and don't bother at all. Actually you can get a crow to lock up to 175k with implants and passive boost, and have a MWD. have not checked with links yet but most certainly about 220-230k i'd like to see the cap consumption of the "link" first before discussing it actually. if it will eat out your cap - any other inty will counter it. |
Violent Morgana
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:08:56 -
[823] - Quote
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? |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1536
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:09:30 -
[824] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Capt Tenguru79 wrote:Actually you can get a crow to lock up to 175k with implants and passive boost, and have a MWD. have not checked with links yet but most certainly about 220-230k And it's still countered by an atron sat at 0 with a link of its own...
Quite true, and the desire to kill the opposition twenty gates away, is not exactly playing to CCP's goals. Local defence is the name of the game. You point out how easy it is IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE LIVING THERE. And that's the idea, banning interceptors etc is just trying to keep things the same.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1117
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:09:52 -
[825] - Quote
I'll have to review something on whether defensive reinforcing is possible with neutral alts. I don't think it is.
The prime time thing is fine. The 4 hour time on it after I thought it over is fine also. They basically give you 20 hours to roam everywhere and 4 hours to hang at home everyday. It's still theory and that would probably need to be tested.
But moving the 4 hour time limit to 6 or 8 or 12 is probably a bad idea especially for an active system with pilots in it. The last thing you need is people endlessly camping their own system terrified to go 1 jump because of being reinforced.
)
Yaay!!!!
|
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
58
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:09:53 -
[826] - Quote
SoulLess Zealot wrote:Total Newbie wrote:*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
To recap:
1st phase we made it impossible to project force.
2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov. yea thats the idea. if you can handle a bunch of "scrub newbie alts" you didn't really deserve it in the first place. sorry you cant sit back ,rat and drop supers on anything that tries to contest you. im glad ccp has turned null sec from a niche lag grind into something more fun and meaningful. something that is actualy worthy of the revere!
And I would be willing to bet that every player, such as yourself, with 2 years in the game feels pretty much the same. You weren't here when the sov mechanics changed the last time, so I will help you. Basically they have reverted back to 2009, and now added everything that is Bad in FW.
In your shoes, I would probably feel the same, however, there are loads of people still left in the game with 7,8,9, 10 years in that have invested countless hours, endured changes throughout that have RARELY benefitted older players, and yet again CCP continues their failed strategy to continue to force High sec bears into nullsec...... If they really wanted to go, they would have gone long ago......
They can show you a flashy graph that says "Look, Nulls sec has more kills and more people in it since we created jump fatigue!!!!"
It's a sham, because along with the nerf, Big alliances basically went and took the space they wanted. Killed any leftover assets (Pos's, POCOS, etc) which generate loads of KM's.
Yes, the DEvs showed you that there was an increase in players and kills..... When there was CTA after CTA after CTA for the past 2 month, people subbed their Titans and Supers, and their alts..... I had 4 toons running almost 24/7. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3942
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:11:22 -
[827] - Quote
I have removed a reply to an edited out part of the post it quoted.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:11:27 -
[828] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Altrue wrote:The bad stuff:[list] Yay! Brave Collective will pick an US timezone and thanks to your new system, ensure that EU and AU get no chances to defend their space EVER. At least, with the current system we had the opportunity to actively prevent the first attack... Now all is left is the defense of station services, very exciting. Or maybe Brave could split into multiple alliances for differing timezones that are loosely affiliated in a coalition but are much more independent and locally operated. And then maybe once in awhile those alliances might get bored and actually fight each other instead of blue-ing up half the map, or draw conflict from smaller groups that want to take on, say, only AU Brave but not the entirety of US/EU/AU Brave. Which, I think, was kind of the point. It's supposed to encourage these massive blocs to break up into smaller, localized units with people that actually PLAY TOGETHER in similar timezones, in space, with each other. Not just in name only.
You hit the bedrock here \\o//
+1
i like this new sov a lot, and I enjoy every tear that drops here ^^ |
Rendiff
Funk Soul Brothers
97
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:13:29 -
[829] - Quote
I like where they're going with this, but they need to make each system able to sustain the activity of a larger number of players.
If a system can sustain ratting/mining/etc for more players each alliance will require less space, allowing more groups entry into null. |
Escuro
Disassembly workshop Out of Sight.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:13:38 -
[830] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:I'll have to review something on whether defensive reinforcing is possible with neutral alts. I don't think it is.
The prime time thing is fine. The 4 hour time on it after I thought it over is fine also. They basically give you 20 hours to roam everywhere and 4 hours to hang at home everyday. It's still theory and that would probably need to be tested.
But moving the 4 hour time limit to 6 or 8 or 12 is probably a bad idea especially for an active system with pilots in it. The last thing you need is people endlessly camping their own system terrified to go 1 jump because of being reinforced.
Also I highly recommend a few restrictions on this new module be in place.
1) cannot be fit on any covops, t3, black ops battleship or force recon (combat recon is fine). I would go so far as to prevent any ship from being able to even fit a cloaking device on itself when it has this module. It avoids some basic cloaky camping bs. They can swap stuff using a mobile depot if they want.
2) cannot be done on a npc corp alt (think that was already stated)
if you actually use your systems - it's a 40 minute timer. Just don't hold OVER9000 systems and stick to those you need. Then you will not have to go roaming 40 jumps away and will be able to respond timely. If you own systems with a 10 minute timer - you don't need them. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2073
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:14:06 -
[831] - Quote
I'm gonna quote an alliance buddy here:
Q: How many EVE players does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: CHANGE???????? NNOOOOOOOOOOO |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
796
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:14:09 -
[832] - Quote
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?
A single defender with a link?
Or a handful with ECM/damps. |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:15:03 -
[833] - Quote
MajorScrewup wrote:I seriously thought there was going to be more after all this time...
Realistically there is now the possibility that I could never be involved in trying to take SOV as every other alliance could set a time when I cannot log into EvE and play. This artificial timer could mean that EvE null-sec only becomes an option to certain timezones.
Isn't the game working this way right now any way?
you set the timers to 2H window now, and you also can set timer on POS if you are online.
Nothing will change with new timers, you just have 4 hours insted of two now. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2073
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:16:12 -
[834] - Quote
Also, advocating again to base the prime time on corp that owns structure rather than alliance |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1538
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:17:57 -
[835] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Also, advocating again to base the prime time on corp that owns structure rather than alliance
That does make sense if we are going to local defence, that tends to happen at corp level rather than alliance level.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2075
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:18:50 -
[836] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Rowells wrote:Also, advocating again to base the prime time on corp that owns structure rather than alliance That does make sense if we are going to local defence, that tends to happen at corp level rather than alliance level. Worst case you can still help out another corp that has similar TZ if your in a diverse corp. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
900
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:19:06 -
[837] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Dev Blog wrote: Providing benefits for robust in-space activity has been one of the key drivers of many of the economic changes to Nullsec over the past few years, and those changes have been quite successful in shifting the focus of Nullsec economic activity from static assets to bottom-up gameplay. ItGÇÖs now time to begin linking this same bottom-up economic activity more strongly with the world of strategic Sovereignty warfare.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh, my sides, that hurt. Wow. I mean, just wow. Oh god, I'm going to be giggling for days.
He was a bit over the top in several places. I like all the summaries in the first blog - ~ "Things are just dandy after Phoebe". Holy cow - spin, spin, spin.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
1006
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:19:14 -
[838] - Quote
The only change I would make at first glance is expanding the "prime time" window to 8 hours. This would allow your alliance to pick US/EU, US/RUS or EU/RUS but not be required to cover all 3. |
Jalebi
Economic Stimulus Corp
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:19:24 -
[839] - Quote
The proposed metrics for occupancy bonuses -- the current industrial/military/ indices-- are outdated.
Basing them on only mining and killing NPCs doesn't cover the entire scope of living in a system. For example, Industrial index should also include manufacturing and research done, military index can include player deaths (perhaps final blows or PvP damage from the sov holding alliance can contribute to this number?), and strategic index can include jump bridge or cyno beacon usage. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1538
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:19:39 -
[840] - Quote
Rowells wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Rowells wrote:Also, advocating again to base the prime time on corp that owns structure rather than alliance That does make sense if we are going to local defence, that tends to happen at corp level rather than alliance level. Worst case you can still help out another corp that has similar TZ if your in a diverse corp.
That seems logical, worth CCP considering if it fits their goals.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
Geanos
V I R I I Triumvirate.
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:20:10 -
[841] - Quote
Sorry if somebody already brought it up: the part with the exploding TCU is problematic. It will turn the sov capturing into a race of who can drop first the TCU from cloaked blockade runners. It doesn't matter if you where defeated on the battlefield, you where a faster clicker than the other guy and managed to keep sov... |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:20:15 -
[842] - Quote
Rendiff wrote:I like where they're going with this, but they need to make each system able to sustain the activity of a larger number of players.
If a system can sustain ratting/mining/etc for more players each alliance will require less space, allowing more groups entry into null.
Is you drop more anoms than there are now, people will endlesly bump into each other. It's super anoying, as long there is no toll (better than d scan) to see if anomaly is occupied, i don't see a way to do it. |
Abulurd Boniface
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective
161
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:21:46 -
[843] - Quote
1. Kudos for the gumption of addressing a long-standing problem in nul-sec mechanics. This is going to be the thread naught to end all thread naughts :-)
2. Your communication about it is nothing short of a thing of beauty. I understand where you're going with this on the first pass. Extremely exciting.
3. Distributing the spawns throughout the constellation is definitely going to make sure not every fight is going to be in the same system.
4. This change does favour larger entities because they will be able to keep a very large area of space covered by fleets to control the space. I honestly don't think you could ever devise a system that larger entities won't benefit from. Numeric superiority has historically proven to be the deciding factor.
5. Although smaller entities will find it easier to attack some portion of a system it is going to take a lot of work to keep and maintain a nul-sec presence. This design demands dedicated presence for long periods of time. Which is the point of being there and having sov, it's still going to be a job doing that. This puts a floor under the kind of entity that can own space. It will require a minimum size for an entity to occupy sov and that minimum will tend to be fairly high. It will take dedicated man power to hold space.
6. Smaller entities will be much easier to harass. If the present technique is to bore the opposition out of their sov, the new technique will be to bludgeon the smaller entity until they can't muster the will to show up anymore. I think they're both equally bad alternatives.
7. Although this redesign effort is a great way to address some game play issues, I'm not sure whether sov is the thing we want to hold onto. Sov is 'a way' to address the grand scheme of being living deities in a space simulator. I'm not convinced it has to be the only way. From the point of view of ontology I'm not sure that sov should be the thing a capsuleer necessarily wants out of eternity. Ask yourself what that thing would be that you would want out of eternal life, how that would generate conflict and give us that to weave our web of deceit around. I'm not at all certain that sov would be the ultimate answer to that question.
Other than that your work on EVE, your exemplary communication around it and all the exquisite hard work you put into making this a better place for everyone deserves nothing but our deepest respect and thanks.
12 days to go. See you there. |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:22:08 -
[844] - Quote
Geanos wrote:Sorry if somebody already brought it up: the part with the exploding TCU is problematic. It will turn the sov capturing into a race of who can drop first the TCU from cloaked blockade runners. And that would made the capture of the Command Nodes pointless.
Y yyy you are right here, but TCU is not playing the main role here any more tho.
But you have same stuff with pos's and Coustom offices now, and it seems ok ^^ |
captain foivos
State War Academy Caldari State
268
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:22:27 -
[845] - Quote
*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. ISD Ezwal. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
900
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:22:32 -
[846] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:and so begins the subbing of accounts.. month to month screw paying you guys months upfront.. EVER AGAIN. take your plex and stick it.
I guess you really mean "unsubbing"
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:22:55 -
[847] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Agent Known wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:REALLY IMPORTANT:
Entosis Link should trigger alert IMMEDIATELY - not after a 10 Minute delay when the damage is already done!!!!
*(Please like this post so Dev's will clearly see this) If you're actively using the system they're contesting then intel channels would tell you well before they got to the structures anyway. Intel channels don't tell you someone's fit or cargo. No where in all of EVE's mechanics does an attacker of a POS or POCO or ANY player owned structure get a free 10 minute head start in contesting anything in this game.... @#$@ THAT! That's **** game design right there --- I'm all for what's proposed EXCEPT that! I would go so far as saying any system upgraded past level 1 (so 2 and above) should give that warning, but only those, so basically if your alliance makes even a passing try at using the space you get that benefit, otherwise, your clueless about who's doing what in that wooded 10 acre lot behind your house. Maybe actually go into those woods and see instead of relying on automation to play the game for you? Notifications of aggression encourage AFK empires and coalitions. Thus, bad.
If you're actually living in the space, then you will know what is going on - without notifications. |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:24:56 -
[848] - Quote
waltari wrote:So basically sov nullsec turns into some weird form of Faction Warfare with a benefit to literaly nobody, full of 24/7 hellcamped freeports filled with trolls who doesnt realy want to hold the SOV anyway (due to reason mentioned earlier), whilst denying the current holders possibility to protect it effectively due to split timezones, great concept realy, keep up good work.
Adapt or die, welcome to eve, this game is dark and hard. GO BACK TO WOW xD Xa xa xa |
Aya Nova
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:25:49 -
[849] - Quote
Capqu wrote:buff sov benefits to compensate
+20% mining yield per industry index +20% anomaly cash yield per military index
or some ****
i say this as someone who has never lived in sov and has harassed lots and lots, there needs to be a buff to people living there if there's gonna be such a huge buff to me and mine
i mean why wouldnt you just do lvl 4s and mine in highsec even more than people do already if sov is getting harder to hold
Some kind of boost would be good. The income from null mining vs hisec is laughably low. Extra yeld isn't really an answer though as it would increase drag tedium / overflow ore hold.
I'd prefer to see new types of ore added that only appear in L5 systems (or scale in commonality in L3-5 systems) which refine into massively larger amounts. (ex. a Super-Duper Trit that yelds 3x as much as regular Trit, but is only present in L5 industry systems. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
901
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:26:21 -
[850] - Quote
Myriad Blaze wrote:Quote:and the Industrial Index is obtained by mining in the system. So considering the new importance of maxing defense bonuses from occupancy, how is mining for a high industrial index better than grinding structures? If I wanted to shoot rocks, I could have stayed in high-sec. At least tie the industrial index to industry maybe? Probably in the form of building/producing stuff? Maybe even consider planetary industry.
How about recruiting people to shoot those rocks for you? You know, the guys in HiSec that you **** over when you've been bored with Sov games?
--- Signature Locked |
|
Capt Tenguru79
Mass Production
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:28:09 -
[851] - Quote
Escuro wrote:Capt Tenguru79 wrote:Escuro wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Devs, make sure you cant fit entosis links to frigates.
Intys, cov ops, bombers, nano dessys.... Thats bit too easy for griefers to exploit.
Let it be on cruiser and above hulls only. tell me how. Activating the link will prohibit you from cloaking, warping etc. You can fit an inty to lock up to 120-130km. This can be countered with a LOT of stuff. Also, you can just use your own link and don't bother at all. Actually you can get a crow to lock up to 175k with implants and passive boost, and have a MWD. have not checked with links yet but most certainly about 220-230k i'd like to see the cap consumption of the "link" first before discussing it actually. if it will eat out your cap - any other inty will counter it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgv1g1zdlkssp59/Sov%20Grind%20Ceptor.PNG?dl=0 And that is without proper links, the SC is the ceptor being in a fleet with its self. this was a 20 sec build i am sure someone can come up with something better if they spend time on it It even has the majority of its fittings left to fit the module as well |
Proton Stars
OREfull
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:29:04 -
[852] - Quote
Ha, alliances are going to have to ration fa fest atendees! If too many fc's go they won't have space to come home to in 2016. |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
138
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:29:30 -
[853] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:The Zombie F1 pusher died today.
It took a while, did it? |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:29:33 -
[854] - Quote
Elana Apgar wrote:Everyone's complaining about the timezone mechanic, but to it actually sounds like a good idea. Who doesn't want to have guaranteed PVP every day during their prime time?
Sadly, the absolute minority of eve. |
Leisha Miranen
The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:30:15 -
[855] - Quote
Holy ******* **** CCP, is this a joke?
40 Minutes to RF? Tone this down before it's too late to back out. This is insane. LET ME REPEAT, THAT IS INSANE. Why would anyone store ships in a system that can be taken in 40 minutes by a small gang?
R.I.P. Null sec Coalitions.
It should take a significant amount of work to take a system. This will be the last nail in the coffin of EVE online's Null Sec. population, because it no longer be viable to defend and hold sov. Srsly. ******* fix this, right now. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:31:09 -
[856] - Quote
Also why on earth are fcon defending this? They'll be wiped off the map quicker than a *** stain in a nudey booth |
Escuro
Disassembly workshop Out of Sight.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:32:29 -
[857] - Quote
Capt Tenguru79 wrote:Escuro wrote:Capt Tenguru79 wrote:Escuro wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Devs, make sure you cant fit entosis links to frigates.
Intys, cov ops, bombers, nano dessys.... Thats bit too easy for griefers to exploit.
Let it be on cruiser and above hulls only. tell me how. Activating the link will prohibit you from cloaking, warping etc. You can fit an inty to lock up to 120-130km. This can be countered with a LOT of stuff. Also, you can just use your own link and don't bother at all. Actually you can get a crow to lock up to 175k with implants and passive boost, and have a MWD. have not checked with links yet but most certainly about 220-230k i'd like to see the cap consumption of the "link" first before discussing it actually. if it will eat out your cap - any other inty will counter it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgv1g1zdlkssp59/Sov%20Grind%20Ceptor.PNG?dl=0 And that is without proper links, the SC is the ceptor being in a fleet with its self. this was a 20 sec build i am sure someone can come up with something better if they spend time on it Look at the cap. You need 12 minutes minimum, and up to 40 on an active system. Add some cap use from the link and you are shot after 5 minutes - have no guns, no speed, can't warp. Sounds like a plan :D |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
139
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:38:03 -
[858] - Quote
I think that would be cool, if system military/industry lvl is below 2, the system is vulnerable.
If you do nothing with your sov, there sould be no defensive prime time window |
Capt Tenguru79
Mass Production
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:38:24 -
[859] - Quote
Escuro wrote: Look at the cap. You need 12 minutes minimum, and up to 40 on an active system. Add some cap use from the link and you are shot after 5 minutes - have no guns, no speed, can't warp. Sounds like a plan :D
First off who runs links from a crow and not a booster t3 or at least a commandship, As for speed i am sure someone can get a better fit if they play around with it i never claimed the fit was perfect. Also as far as guns the fitting requirements easily allow launchers. This was merely a proof of concept not the new meta. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:39:09 -
[860] - Quote
Long post incoming.
First off, these changes as they stand make CONDI win eve, thanks CCP.
The changes as they currently stand heavily favor nullified ships, meaning that you will see large gangs of inties and t3s roaming around as the main strategic fleets. Being as this counters the basis of having better ship usage distribution in EVE, I would suggest removing interdiction immunity from all ships. Otherwise, some unnamed group that may or may not exist will gladly burn down all of Eve in inties. Good luck ever catching them.
These new mechanics are actually good and remove the (N+1) requirement of supercapitals to control nullsec space. HOWEVER, CCP is not fully attacking the problem- only part of it.
As nullsec stands, there is very little reason for large groups to go to war. Aside from moons and rental territory, there is no incentive for a group to go on a full scale war with any other equally sized group. These suggested changes do not change the fundamental issue that we have no reason to engage in massive warfare, especially because it is difficult to successfully control multiple areas of space. This change will only continue the blue doughnut empires around Eve (of which the CFC is technically one of the smaller blue doughnuts).
In order for the nullsec landscape to change in a meaningful way, there needs to be incentive to hold additional space. As it stands, nullsec income varies wildly between -.01 and -.50+, with the former systems arguably being worse than highsec. Nullsec specific ore is some of the worst ore in the game (because CCP still hasn't fixed null anomalies), and Null ice hardly is as valuable as it should be because of all of the reductions in ice product usage.
While many people think that nullsec is a place with infinite riches, it's hardly that. Sure, ratting in null is good because you can do it pretty much entirely AFK. However, in an ishtar, AFK ratting nets a measly 60-70 million isk an hour on average, before taxes. Active ratting can make over 100 mil an hour, sure. But if you're doing active anything, you'd make significantly more money in Wormholes or even blitzing highsec missions.
There needs to be an incentive for two equally sized groups to go to war. Until that happens, nullsec will change in small amounts but not change over time. Sure, groups like the CFC will give up regions of space because it becomes a pain in the ass to defend them because of CCP changes, but these changes will not encourage such groups to full on go to war with each other, which is what Eve needs.
Overall, I like these mechanics, but there needs to be more in order to actually encourage groups to use them. These will not suddenly give NC. a reason to come attack Deklein, as the aforementioned group that may or may not exist would burn all of their space down. |
|
Thucydides Herodotus
Ether Bunnies
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:40:17 -
[861] - Quote
"Maximum range of 25km for Tech One, 250km for Tech Two. Requires a target lock on the structure.
Capital Ships would have restrictions for using these modules, most likely in the form of a role bonus that increases the cycle time by 400% (this means a 10 minute cycle time for a T2 Entosis Link on a capital ship)."
First off the bonuses to the T2 (in theory) are just absolutely ridiculous. A large capital fleet of armour ships with mids having a range scripted sensor booster and drone tracking/range mods fit would be able to self rep and maintain the point from 250km off the target piece of SOV? Sheebus.
Once the Territorial Claimamigigger is destroyed anyone can then drop a new one in the system? So the attacking force is three jumps out, the defending force realizes they can't win. They return to base, get large un-maneuverable but powerful ships out, let the attackers win the battle three jumps out and then just drop their new replacement TCU and wax the crap out of any attackers in system doing the same? Maybe everything should just change hands and anything but a station should just random spawn like an anom.
ugh. I think this is going to be, once again, very beneficial to the biggest blob that can just break itself into the biggest smaller pieces with the caviate of adding the most timezones due to the downtime continuation.
Deciding Phoebe was a good thing based on crap stats about how people aren't actually getting the chance to play eve anymore is wrecking your self assessment/decision making processes. (you mentioned it in your post not me). I get the timers from Phoebe I still don't get the ranges at all. Honestly all I've noticed is a 30 minute fleet takes 3 hours now and there is never anyone still there to fight.
I'd like to know what a small alliance that takes a relatively undefended and undeveloped system in the backwoods of a less important region of space is going to gain from that? Are they going to mine for not enough minerals to build anything? With reduced jump ranges on Jump Freighters and friends how are they going to get their mod fought gains out of said system?
~Cheers. |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
139
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:42:29 -
[862] - Quote
Leisha Miranen wrote:Holy ******* **** CCP, is this a joke?40 Minutes to RF? Tone this down before it's too late to back out. This is insane. LET ME REPEAT, THAT IS INSANE. Why would anyone store ships in a system that can be RF'd in 40 minutes by a small gang? R.I.P. Null sec Coalitions. It should take a significant amount of work to take a system. This will be the last nail in the coffin of EVE online's Null Sec. population, because it no longer be viable to defend and hold sov. Srsly. ******* fix this, right now.
Srylyly What?
YOu have your prime time window, capture **** in 10 min as a defender, what else would you like? lol
Drop some idea here, not just "THAT IS INSANE NOOO CHANGES NOOO AAAAaaaaaaa rip."
Adapt or die this game is hard and dark, and this new sov is some fresh air to stale smelly null-sec |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
139
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:43:43 -
[863] - Quote
Bonzair wrote:Give us possibility to choose version before production changes :D You'll see that all your 'features' are a piece of s*** http://funnyshit.com.au/img/bigcupofshutthefuckup.jpg |
Circumstantial Evidence
172
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:45:22 -
[864] - Quote
What can be taken away quickly, can be taken back almost as quickly. A large force could roll over a region, but if they don't stick around, the locals just take it back. The proposed system promotes more frequent fights, which is what some folks want, right?
I think some folks are overly fixated on the industrial / mining bonus. Its in the chart: the defender is missing out on a little over 10 minutes of extra Entosis link time, if Industry is zero. 27.5 if Military and Strategic are maxed out, versus 40 for everything. I think its perfectly valid to complain that the maximum 40 minutes seems too short, compared to hours of structure grinding by bomber fleets that we have known up to now... which is more like 5 minutes, to a supercarrier blob. But I would not complain about a subset of the proposed 40 minutes. |
Thucydides Herodotus
Ether Bunnies
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:45:36 -
[865] - Quote
Thucydides Herodotus wrote:"Maximum range of 25km for Tech One, 250km for Tech Two. Requires a target lock on the structure.
Capital Ships would have restrictions for using these modules, most likely in the form of a role bonus that increases the cycle time by 400% (this means a 10 minute cycle time for a T2 Entosis Link on a capital ship)."
First off the bonuses to the T2 (in theory) are just absolutely ridiculous. A large capital fleet of armour ships with mids having a range scripted sensor booster and drone tracking/range mods fit would be able to self rep and maintain the point from 250km off the target piece of SOV? Sheebus.
Once the Territorial Claimamigigger is destroyed anyone can then drop a new one in the system? So the attacking force is three jumps out, the defending force realizes they can't win. They return to base, get large un-maneuverable but powerful ships out, let the attackers win the battle three jumps out and then just drop their new replacement TCU and wax the crap out of any attackers in system doing the same? Maybe everything should just change hands and anything but a station should just random spawn like an anom.
ugh. I think this is going to be, once again, very beneficial to the biggest blob that can just break itself into the biggest smaller pieces with the caviate of adding the most timezones due to the downtime continuation.
Deciding Phoebe was a good thing based on crap stats about how people aren't actually getting the chance to play eve anymore is wrecking your self assessment/decision making processes. (you mentioned it in your post not me). I get the timers from Phoebe I still don't get the ranges at all. Honestly all I've noticed is a 30 minute fleet takes 3 hours now and there is never anyone still there to fight.
I'd like to know what a small alliance that takes a relatively undefended and undeveloped system in the backwoods of a less important region of space is going to gain from that? Are they going to mine for not enough minerals to build anything? With reduced jump ranges on Jump Freighters and friends how are they going to get their mod fought gains out of said system?
~Cheers.
Hey remember when there were a ton of pages of people hating the idea of phoebe and they ignored us and put that pos out anyways? Why am I bothering to post/pay for this game. Also thanks for the upcoming release, nothing new, nerf the only ship that can do good dps and not melt to a bomber, while at the same time making more skill points less valuable, well played CCP. |
Black Ambulance
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:47:45 -
[866] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:waltari wrote:So basically sov nullsec turns into some weird form of Faction Warfare with a benefit to literaly nobody, full of 24/7 hellcamped freeports filled with trolls who doesnt realy want to hold the SOV anyway (due to reason mentioned earlier), whilst denying the current holders possibility to protect it effectively due to split timezones, great concept realy, keep up good work. Adapt or die, welcome to eve, this game is dark and hard. GO BACK TO WOW xD Xa xa xa
You will be the 1st one who will be whining on forums after the changes :))) I believe lot of CFC space will be taken , even no one want it :) |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:49:00 -
[867] - Quote
well couple question.
1 what is to prevent a cepter or bomber from reffing a region? will this module have some sort of charge making it not possible for a small ship to just gref people to death?
2 shouldn't you make this module only fit able to command ships? makes sense to me. they have the tank and require some skill to fly. if you don't this is gonna be gay-boys online really fast. every noob gonna be like ooooo i has stealth bomber lets go take deklein.
3 why you hate capitals so much yo. i know CCP Rise cant fly them but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't want to. i really hope you have some good content in the pipe for supers. titans, dreads, and carriers. because as of right now the content for them is limited and post this patch that amount of available content drops even more dramatically |
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:49:13 -
[868] - Quote
Leisha Miranen wrote:Holy ******* **** CCP, is this a joke?40 Minutes to RF? Tone this down before it's too late to back out. This is insane. LET ME REPEAT, THAT IS INSANE. Why would anyone store ships in a system that can be RF'd in 40 minutes by a small gang? R.I.P. Null sec Coalitions. It should take a significant amount of work to take a system. This will be the last nail in the coffin of EVE online's Null Sec. population, because it no longer be viable to defend and hold sov. Srsly. ******* fix this, right now.
firstly its meant to break the coalition gameplay
secondly: 5 or 2 min + (notification of attack) 10 - 40 min + 2 days RF + time to complete command node contest + 2 day free port then its capture-able.
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66967/1/sovflow.jpg
blue flow graph, learn to read |
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
617
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:50:52 -
[869] - Quote
Black Ambulance wrote:Hairpins Blueprint wrote:waltari wrote:So basically sov nullsec turns into some weird form of Faction Warfare with a benefit to literaly nobody, full of 24/7 hellcamped freeports filled with trolls who doesnt realy want to hold the SOV anyway (due to reason mentioned earlier), whilst denying the current holders possibility to protect it effectively due to split timezones, great concept realy, keep up good work. Adapt or die, welcome to eve, this game is dark and hard. GO BACK TO WOW xD Xa xa xa You will be the 1st one who will be whining on forums after the changes :))) I believe lot of CFC space will be taken , even no one want it :)
Taken by what army?
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Black Ambulance
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:50:57 -
[870] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:well couple question.
1 what is to prevent a cepter or bomber from reffing a region? will this module have some sort of charge making it not possible for a small ship to just gref people to death?
2 shouldn't you make this module only fit able to command ships? makes sense to me. they have the tank and require some skill to fly. if you don't this is gonna be gay-boys online really fast. every noob gonna be like ooooo i has stealth bomber lets go take deklein.
3 why you hate capitals so much yo. i know CCP Rise cant fly them but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't want to. i really hope you have some good content in the pipe for supers. titans, dreads, and carriers. because as of right now the content for them is limited and post this patch that amount of available content drops even more dramatically
Yo will be able to keep bashing POCOs with them anyway :)) |
|
S3ND3TH
Czerka. Out Of The Void
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:50:59 -
[871] - Quote
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~
goon tears are by far the sweetest tears |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
141
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:52:22 -
[872] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Are the HP and Anchor/Online times for IHUBs and TCU's being adjusted?
There no HP any more mate, you don't shoot those things any more :D |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1541
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:52:25 -
[873] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:well couple question.
1 what is to prevent a cepter or bomber from reffing a region? will this module have some sort of charge making it not possible for a small ship to just gref people to death?
2 shouldn't you make this module only fit able to command ships? makes sense to me. they have the tank and require some skill to fly. if you don't this is gonna be gay-boys online really fast. every noob gonna be like ooooo i has stealth bomber lets go take deklein.
3 why you hate capitals so much yo. i know CCP Rise cant fly them but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't want to. i really hope you have some good content in the pipe for supers. titans, dreads, and carriers. because as of right now the content for them is limited and post this patch that amount of available content drops even more dramatically
As someone pointed out earlier a single atron flown by SOMEONE WHO LIVES THERE can prevent them switching a system. And i would hope in your peak time zone you are not alone? If no one lives there give up any idea of assistiance from 40 jumps away.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:54:02 -
[874] - Quote
S3ND3TH 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~ goon tears are by far the sweetest tears
i cant wait to fill my cup with FA's |
Black Ambulance
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:55:03 -
[875] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Black Ambulance wrote:Hairpins Blueprint wrote:waltari wrote:So basically sov nullsec turns into some weird form of Faction Warfare with a benefit to literaly nobody, full of 24/7 hellcamped freeports filled with trolls who doesnt realy want to hold the SOV anyway (due to reason mentioned earlier), whilst denying the current holders possibility to protect it effectively due to split timezones, great concept realy, keep up good work. Adapt or die, welcome to eve, this game is dark and hard. GO BACK TO WOW xD Xa xa xa You will be the 1st one who will be whining on forums after the changes :))) I believe lot of CFC space will be taken , even no one want it :) Taken by what army?
Literally taken by any other alliance :)) |
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:55:22 -
[876] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Cr Turist wrote:well couple question.
1 what is to prevent a cepter or bomber from reffing a region? will this module have some sort of charge making it not possible for a small ship to just gref people to death?
2 shouldn't you make this module only fit able to command ships? makes sense to me. they have the tank and require some skill to fly. if you don't this is gonna be gay-boys online really fast. every noob gonna be like ooooo i has stealth bomber lets go take deklein.
3 why you hate capitals so much yo. i know CCP Rise cant fly them but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't want to. i really hope you have some good content in the pipe for supers. titans, dreads, and carriers. because as of right now the content for them is limited and post this patch that amount of available content drops even more dramatically As someone pointed out earlier a single atron flown by SOMEONE WHO LIVES THERE can prevent them switching a system. If no one lives there give up any idea of assistiance from 40 jumps away.
its almost as if CCP want you to hold the systems you are using *mind blown* |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:55:34 -
[877] - Quote
Sieonigh wrote:Leisha Miranen wrote:Holy ******* **** CCP, is this a joke?40 Minutes to RF? Tone this down before it's too late to back out. This is insane. LET ME REPEAT, THAT IS INSANE. Why would anyone store ships in a system that can be RF'd in 40 minutes by a small gang? R.I.P. Null sec Coalitions. It should take a significant amount of work to take a system. This will be the last nail in the coffin of EVE online's Null Sec. population, because it no longer be viable to defend and hold sov. Srsly. ******* fix this, right now. firstly its meant to break the coalition gameplay
Which it's not going to accomplish. You can try arbitrary mechanisms to channel behaviour, CCP has done this time and time again, turned out it didn't work. Then they started to think about introducing stimuli based on incentivising in balance with restrictive elements like jump lag, that started to have an effect. Now they're back on the train of the mechanical design approach.
And already the min/maxing has begun among the blocks. Layers of rent control alliances as buffers was the first weak link to be spotted.
It'll work fine in some places, like where there's NRDS and there's an established record to avoid the kind of behaviour that leads to blocks. But the rest, it'll need more than this. More, and different.
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
617
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:55:44 -
[878] - Quote
Black Ambulance wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Black Ambulance wrote:Hairpins Blueprint wrote:waltari wrote:So basically sov nullsec turns into some weird form of Faction Warfare with a benefit to literaly nobody, full of 24/7 hellcamped freeports filled with trolls who doesnt realy want to hold the SOV anyway (due to reason mentioned earlier), whilst denying the current holders possibility to protect it effectively due to split timezones, great concept realy, keep up good work. Adapt or die, welcome to eve, this game is dark and hard. GO BACK TO WOW xD Xa xa xa You will be the 1st one who will be whining on forums after the changes :))) I believe lot of CFC space will be taken , even no one want it :) Taken by what army? Literally taken by any other alliance :))
There are such forces in existence? What are they doing all this time?
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
144
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:58:14 -
[879] - Quote
Black Ambulance wrote: Adapt or die, welcome to eve, this game is dark and hard. GO BACK TO WOW xD Xa xa xa
You will be the 1st one who will be whining on forums after the changes :))) I believe lot of CFC space will be taken , even no one want it :)[/quote]
Good, game will evole, allaince and coalition structure will change, and there will be some thing to do, compared to what we have to do now.
No contet what so ever, shi* stale and stinks.
I would be glad if every thing would colapse coz some thing new would emerge from it.
I can't wait to see the outcoms of this shi* hiting the fan |
Black Ambulance
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:00:03 -
[880] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Black Ambulance wrote: Adapt or die, welcome to eve, this game is dark and hard. GO BACK TO WOW xD Xa xa xa
You will be the 1st one who will be whining on forums after the changes :))) I believe lot of CFC space will be taken , even no one want it :)
Good, game will evole, allaince and coalition structure will change, and there will be some thing to do, compared to what we have to do now.
No contet what so ever, shi* stale and stinks.
I would be glad if every thing would colapse coz some thing new would emerge from it.
I can't wait to the the utoms of this shi* hiting the fan[/quote]
Yeah , let;s see how CCP going to fix the SOV :)) |
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
617
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:00:15 -
[881] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Black Ambulance wrote: Adapt or die, welcome to eve, this game is dark and hard. GO BACK TO WOW xD Xa xa xa
Black Ambulance wrote: You will be the 1st one who will be whining on forums after the changes :))) I believe lot of CFC space will be taken , even no one want it :)
Good, game will evole, allaince and coalition structure will change, and there will be some thing to do, compared to what we have to do now. No contet what so ever, shi* stale and stinks. I would be glad if every thing would colapse coz some thing new would emerge from it. I can't wait to the the utoms of this shi* hiting the fan
Are you going to stay awake with me during the tides of timezone fuckery, my beloved ally?
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
144
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:01:42 -
[882] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:
3 why you hate capitals so much yo. i know CCP Rise cant fly them but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't want to.
This is pure Gold |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:02:06 -
[883] - Quote
Wait better question. if no more timers then whats the incentive to fight at all?
not fighting to save a system. not fighting to save a station. whats the point?
i really dont get it maybe im missing something. |
Leisha Miranen
The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:04:27 -
[884] - Quote
#1) Who wants coalitions gone? I like coalitions, personally. I've never seen anyone whining that coalitions are the issue.
#2) This "entosis" module or whatever tf it is should not be usable with any ship. Why don't I just fit up 50 atrons all with one and go RF random stuff just for the lolz? It will be chaos, think about this.
#3) The 2 day freeport is insane. It means the attackers can use the station to store ships in a hostile system in which they should have no foothold.
#4) Death to supers.
#5) It used to take 40 minutes to RF a structure, and that was fine - it took a gang of 30 people to do so. However having one entosis module able to grind a structure with ANY SHIP in 40 mins? It means 5-10 people can grind a system into RF themselves because they can all hit a different structure (no bonuses to having more than one module on the same structure).
It seems to be that it would make a lot more sense if entosis modules could only be fit to capitals. Then you would a) have to have capitals to own, maintain, or take sov, b) have to field your capitals in order to take sov, and c) prevent random small gangs of 5-10 people from being able to Reinforce a whole system by themselves in sub-60 minutes. |
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
618
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:04:31 -
[885] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:Wait better question. if no more timers then whats the incentive to fight at all?
not fighting to save a system. not fighting to save a station. whats the point?
i really dont get it maybe im missing something.
Bitterly hated foe, we should call a truce and go **** on high-sec instead. There will be sweet killmails, freighters and carebear ruins.
Or we can go spin around these thingies against each other. But then I don't want your space, and you don't really want mine.
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Align Planet1
Cognitive Deficit
79
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:05:04 -
[886] - Quote
Forget renting. Extortion is where it's at now.
"Small Group" sets up shop. Reavers, PL, BL, NPC Dwellers (pick one, or more than one) extract bribes from "Small Group" to not reinforce their **** every day, forever.
Sounds fun. |
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
618
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:06:55 -
[887] - Quote
Align Planet1 wrote:Forget renting. Extortion is where it's at now.
"Small Group" sets up shop. Reavers, PL, BL, NPC Dwellers (pick one, or more than one) extract bribes from "Small Group" to not reinforce their **** every day, forever.
Sounds fun.
You summed it up. While we don't really want more space what we do want is control over other people.
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Siobhan MacLeary
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Ocularis Inferno
196
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:07:50 -
[888] - Quote
Wheee, balkanized New Eden will be a thing. I look forward to daytripping out of nullsec connections in wormhole space to **** with sov structures.
E: also, people bitching about being able to fit up a frigate with an Entosis Link and go troll sovholders - THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT!
GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ - CCP Soundwave
|
Stalker ofeveryone
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:08:08 -
[889] - Quote
This thread is saltier than the black sea. I'm loving the tears and rage. |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
145
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:08:30 -
[890] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:Wait better question. if no more timers then whats the incentive to fight at all?
not fighting to save a system. not fighting to save a station. whats the point?
i really dont get it maybe im missing something.
IF the strucrure is reinforced, and the event starts, it rolls until it's done.
it mean if no one will do anu thing, system can stay with events open for years |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30735
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:08:38 -
[891] - Quote
This is a great time to be a Goon.
triple 8 for luck
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Siobhan MacLeary
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Ocularis Inferno
196
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:09:37 -
[892] - Quote
Stalker ofeveryone wrote:This thread is saltier than the black sea. I'm loving the tears and rage.
It's pretty great, innit?
More tears, nullbears! More tears! Fill up my jar!
GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ - CCP Soundwave
|
Anthar Thebess
943
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:10:32 -
[893] - Quote
Can we get more gate connections between the regions into the NPC space. Already raised few times : 1. Venal/ Stain to some low sec. 2. Outskirt constellations like : http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Paragon_Soul/D9DM-O to some random system in Stain ( while doing similar stuff in all around eve. )
Point number 1 will allow more new comers willing to take some space for them. Point number 2 will allow them to have access to more space.
I love loosing the need of mindless grind. All my dreads are happy :) , my wife also, no more 'honey last siege, i know that it is 3 AM'
Don't brake the idea and force pilots to use some advanced ships for those sov capture modules, but mounting them on something smaller than a cruiser should also be prohibited.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
618
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:10:34 -
[894] - Quote
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:Stalker ofeveryone wrote:This thread is saltier than the black sea. I'm loving the tears and rage. It's pretty great, innit? More tears, nullbears! More tears! Fill up my jar!
Is YOUR space worth taking?
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2090
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:11:51 -
[895] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Also why on earth are fcon defending this? They'll be wiped off the map quicker than a *** stain in a nudey booth we'll still be here. Most likely a lot smaller space, but assuming systems are changed to support more most of us can and will stick it.
It gets pretty boring up here in branch to be honest.
Only way I see us folding is if goons decide to reset everyone and put their sights on the north. |
Lister Vindaloo
5 Tons of Flax
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:12:30 -
[896] - Quote
Just to re-iterate, Prime Time is the worst, most divisive idea I've ever seen, the only thing AU TZ players had to offer corps was our ability to act out of TZ, now we have been relegated to logistics and ratting, this is disgraceful.
This entire prime time system is only going to segregate people, there is no way to make a declared 'safe/vulnerable' time work, just add a greater level of randomness to when the timers will end and allow the attacker/defenders to figure out the best way to deal with the timers.
If you go ahead with this prime time nonsense, can AU TZ have jove space so we can have our own little bit of sov space to fight over? |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
117
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:13:55 -
[897] - Quote
Align Planet1 wrote:Forget renting. Extortion is where it's at now.
"Small Group" sets up shop. Reavers, PL, BL, NPC Dwellers (pick one, or more than one) extract bribes from "Small Group" to not reinforce their **** every day, forever.
Sounds fun. Or small group sets up in NPC null and demands isk to not send out an interceptor fleet every day to reinforce the big bad giants unattended **** every day...
it's like anti renting. |
beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:14:18 -
[898] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:and so begins the subbing of accounts.. month to month screw paying you guys months upfront.. EVER AGAIN. take your plex and stick it. Why dont you like the changes? cause ccp cant even figure out why folks play this game. look at it's history they fail at player retention. it may be harsh and its true. a lot of us right now are pissed off to the fullest. we have cap pilots now sitting in huge paperweights (haha bet you wish you could dock now right).. yet ccp cant understand why folks refuse to pay alittle longer.. plus I am sick of those surveys they send out, its pretty blatant they don't pay attention to it..just like feedback threads.. oops did I say that.. no fawks given. this whole change would be better suited for Low-Sec and not Null-sec cause its understandable the scope of fixing null is so difficult that they CCP do not want to spend any further time dealing with it. now i'll wait and give them pennies instead of full dollars just incase they cant figure out why im no longer biting at their carrot they love to dangle. have you tried having fun |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:14:57 -
[899] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Cr Turist wrote:Wait better question. if no more timers then whats the incentive to fight at all?
not fighting to save a system. not fighting to save a station. whats the point?
i really dont get it maybe im missing something. Bitterly hated foe, we should call a truce and go **** on high-sec instead. There will be sweet killmails, freighters and carebear ruins. Or we can go spin around these thingies against each other. But then I don't want your space, and you don't really want mine.
Forget burn Jita. i say we burn EVE. all 0.0 alliances go to highsec and just burn everything that moves.lol |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4207
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:15:50 -
[900] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Are the HP and Anchor/Online times for IHUBs and TCU's being adjusted?
There no HP any more mate, you don't shoot those things any more :D
I don't think you have it right Hairpins.
Once ONLINED you don't shoot these anymore. However, if you successfully win a contest over an enemy's TCU/IHUB, their TCU/IHUB EXPLODES. You then have to anchor and online your OWN TCU/IHUB.
In the current system: It takes 1 Hour to anchor, and 1 Hour to ONLINE an IHUB. It takes 5 Minutes to anchor, and 8 HOURS to ONLINE a TCU.
During these anchoring and online times, the structures are vulnerable to attack. However, they also have ~20m EHP and ~200m EHP for the TCU and IHUB, respectively.
I'm asking for clarification.... does it still take as long to anchor and online these? Does it still take as much firepower to destroy them? Are they vulnerable while anchoring and onlining (if not, there is a race to see who anchors the first IHUB/TCU once the old IHUB/TCU is destroyed).
|
|
Barbaydos
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:16:04 -
[901] - Quote
instead of having the 4 hour window of doom that alliance can set themselves i have an idea so that more timezones can actually play the sov game.
in a target system you have 2 different types of anomalies we'll call them large and small for lack of a better name.
there are 2 large and 6 small anomalies.
within the anomaly there is a structure that you have to put your entosis link on, for small anoms it takes 5 mins to activate and 15 for the large anom.
to make a system vulnerable you have to activate 2 large or 6 small anoms or a combination of the 2 - total time wise it takes 30mins without interruption to make a system vulnerable.
the small anoms despawn every 3 hours and the large every 6 hours - this is to prevent people making bookmarks that would carry over for several days.
the idea of this is to 1) allow fighting for sov in all timezones 2) still allow small groups of players to attack sov
once a structure is reinforced then it comes out within that 4 hour primetime that is set by the alliance
i would also maybe insert a mechanic that allows the attacker to effect the timer for the structure once it is reinforced to make it better for the attacker. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
119
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:18:36 -
[902] - Quote
Barbaydos wrote:i would also maybe insert a mechanic that allows the attacker to effect the timer for the structure once it is reinforced to make it better for the attacker. Didn't like the rest of your idea - but allowing the attacker to choose their preferred timer (within the primetime of the defending alliance) makes sense....
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
145
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:20:25 -
[903] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Proton Stars wrote:Also why on earth are fcon defending this? They'll be wiped off the map quicker than a *** stain in a nudey booth we'll still be here. Most likely a lot smaller space, but assuming systems are changed to support more most of us can and will stick it. It gets pretty boring up here in branch to be honest. Might be nice to see some groups come and muscle in. Only way I see us folding is if goons decide to reset everyone and put their sights on the north.
True : 3 i hope it will tranform FCON and other bear alliances into some thing better, with more pvp focus. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2134
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:21:17 -
[904] - Quote
Capt Tenguru79 wrote:Escuro wrote:Capt Tenguru79 wrote:Escuro wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Devs, make sure you cant fit entosis links to frigates.
Intys, cov ops, bombers, nano dessys.... Thats bit too easy for griefers to exploit.
Let it be on cruiser and above hulls only. tell me how. Activating the link will prohibit you from cloaking, warping etc. You can fit an inty to lock up to 120-130km. This can be countered with a LOT of stuff. Also, you can just use your own link and don't bother at all. Actually you can get a crow to lock up to 175k with implants and passive boost, and have a MWD. have not checked with links yet but most certainly about 220-230k i'd like to see the cap consumption of the "link" first before discussing it actually. if it will eat out your cap - any other inty will counter it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgv1g1zdlkssp59/Sov%20Grind%20Ceptor.PNG?dl=0 And that is without proper links, the SC is the ceptor being in a fleet with its self. this was a 20 sec build i am sure someone can come up with something better if they spend time on it It even has the majority of its fittings left to fit the module as well
Amateur.
10MN MWD Confessor. 11km/s without links or implants.
Prolapse. Taking fights since 2014.
Sudden Buggery. Got duumb? Hola, Batmanuel!
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4208
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:21:59 -
[905] - Quote
Barbaydos wrote:instead of having the 4 hour window of doom that alliance can set themselves i have an idea so that more timezones can actually play the sov game.
in a target system you have 2 different types of anomalies we'll call them large and small for lack of a better name.
there are 2 large and 6 small anomalies.
within the anomaly there is a structure that you have to put your entosis link on, for small anoms it takes 5 mins to activate and 15 for the large anom.
to make a system vulnerable you have to activate 2 large or 6 small anoms or a combination of the 2 - total time wise it takes 30mins without interruption to make a system vulnerable.
the small anoms despawn every 3 hours and the large every 6 hours - this is to prevent people making bookmarks that would carry over for several days.
the idea of this is to 1) allow fighting for sov in all timezones 2) still allow small groups of players to attack sov
once a structure is reinforced then it comes out within that 4 hour primetime that is set by the alliance
i would also maybe insert a mechanic that allows the attacker to effect the timer for the structure once it is reinforced to make it better for the attacker.
I much prefer to have a larger window of vulnerability based on system activity:
A heavily used system should have a small (4hr) window of vulnerability. An unused system should have a large (12hr) window of vulnerability. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
119
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:22:09 -
[906] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Amateur.
10MN MWD Confessor. 11km/s without links or implants. Still countered by an atron at 0....geez I have to type this every 10 minutes |
Candente
Navy Veteran Club
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:22:19 -
[907] - Quote
Myriad Blaze wrote:Quote:In the new Sovereignty system, each alliance will designate a four hour window through a new option available in the Corporation Management window to certain members of the alliance executor corp. This period will represent the allianceGÇÖs declared prime time, I assume the feedback so far makes it clear that (most) players think Prime Time is a bad idea. Please axe this. If you think about it for a moment, you might realize that locking out a significant portion of the playerbase from partaking in defensive ops for their alliances is a bad move, because you're denying them content. And forcing players into timezone based alliances would be silly, too.
I think most "players" (defined as those who replied in this thread) knew the goal of these change is to give power to local alliances, so the Prime Time would not be a bad idea. Note also the 4 ours of Prime Time can be non-consecutive, which means you can set 2 hours in US and 2 hours of EU, etc.
Quote:Also I don't see how a smaller alliance could have a chance to stand against a larger alliance within the new system. It seems it would be possible to just hellcamp the defender with a fleet of mains, have a two or three groups in fast ships ready to deal with stragglers, while using cheap throwaway alts in (relatively) cheap ships to zip around and reinforce ALL sov structures of the defending alliance in one sweep.
I don't think the goal was ever to make small alliances equally powerful to the large alliance in term of ability to occupy and defend a system. The goal is to make it increasingly hard to hold large number of systems without local occupants and defenders, so large entities will have to prioritize their holdings, which then causes the smaller alliances to strike out to hold those less desirable systems.
|
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
190
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:22:29 -
[908] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:Forget renting. Extortion is where it's at now.
"Small Group" sets up shop. Reavers, PL, BL, NPC Dwellers (pick one, or more than one) extract bribes from "Small Group" to not reinforce their **** every day, forever.
Sounds fun. You summed it up. While we don't really want more space what we do want is control over other people.
Extortion/renting rackets will be harder to actually make work, because actually defending space will take actual work. Even patient people will stop paying protection money quite fast if every punk in the tri-region area RFs their stuff daily and they can't get any use of the space they are paying for.
Sov space needs to be worth more, if more than a handful of large and organized groups are going to be the putative residents here.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Aram Kachaturian
Verge of Collapse
169
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:22:53 -
[909] - Quote
Thucydides Herodotus wrote:
Hey remember when there were a ton of pages of people hating the idea of phoebe and they ignored us and put that pos out anyways? Why am I bothering to post/pay for this game. Also thanks for the upcoming release, nothing new, nerf the only ship that can do good dps and not melt to a bomber, while at the same time making more skill points less valuable, well played CCP.
How does it feel to be that upset ? Do you have visual hallucinations ?
Quit hating on CCP. Your rage is blinding you
"A remnant of the time long past.
Wielder of the Flame of Ballin', Ruler of the Monocle Clubhouse, Skymarshal on a Cosmic Level & Owner of the Wisdom of Kings: The French Prince."
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:24:49 -
[910] - Quote
I'm not a 100+ mil sp player, but if I was id be pissed. |
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3119
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:25:03 -
[911] - Quote
It'll be hilarious when literally every sovholding alliance in the game is having to pay off the CFC not to trash their space with an ento-ceptor horde out of boredom.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Brother Mercury
Fire on the Mountain
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:25:21 -
[912] - Quote
This patch makes it nearly worthless (save for POS BASH) to log in supers or dreads. j
Let's see what some fun scenarios will happen if you attempt to use supercaps and capitals in this new sov:
Scenario 1:
Attacker comes and starts entosis link on structure. Want to use your caps to defend against the initial entosis link? Nope, never-mind too slow, you'll never be able to get there in the minutes it takes to reinforce, and even if you do get there in time and your alliance drops a cap fleet on grid near the attacker's target structure -- JUST KIDDING -- the attackers were entosis linking a bait structure, the structure they really wanted to reinforce was in another constellation. Have fun trying to come and stop this one with your caps because now you have space aids and half your fleet (read: supers and titans) can't gate jump. Congratulations you've just wasted an hour of your life moving a capital fleet and then waiting for space aids to go away.
Scenario 2:
Your structure is reinforced and it is now in the "command node" part of the new sov mechanics. Your alliance has prepared though and has two moderate size sub-cap fleets in addition to a good size supercap/cap fleet to help capture the nodes. Your FC finds the first node first and your subcap fleet gets on grid only to find the attackers have arrived first. It's a close fight so your alliance calls for 1/2 the capital fleet to jump in. As soon as the enemy sees the capitals land, they turn tail with minimal loses and head to the next command node two jumps away. Your capital ships have space aids and your supercaps can't jump gates, but you have to send your sub-caps regardless or you'll lose the next node. Now your supercap/capital fleet is sitting, without subcap support, in the first command node essentially doing nothing while they wait for their space aids to go away.
It's OK your FC says: we have more capitals and another subcap group. Great! So your fleet gets to the next node but the attackers have large numbers so you are forced again to drop the rest of your capitals/supercaps to guarantee that you'll hold the command node. When the enemy attackers see your second capital fleet land, they again immediately "LOL" in local and go to the next node with their entire force.
Now your alliance has two split capital groups with no or little subcap support (because you need to compete for the other nodes) sitting in space with their space aids. You might say: "so what, your now have won a whopping 2 combat nodes man!" But, meanwhile the attackers are loling around the constellation going to the next node with all their forces still intact and with no capitals (still potentially in reserve) and don't give a flying f*ck about your two capital groups because there are EIGHT more nodes to take and they can just LOL out and peace if you bring your big guns.
You can take the fundamentals of these scenarios and slightly change them, but the impacts on supercap and capital use is the same: what is the point of using supercaps or dreads? If there are always at least 10 command nodes (with the potential of there being many more) why even bother? What logical attacker or defender would even bother trying to use supercaps to defend 1 or 2 nodes when there's 8 more to mess with and dropping your supercaps on any 1 or 2 nodes would leave them in an exposed postion.
I dont know how to fix it but there NEEDS to be a valid reason/opportunities to use supercaps and dreads and titans. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
121
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:26:07 -
[913] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:It'll be hilarious when literally every sovholding alliance in the game is having to pay off the CFC not to trash their space with an ento-ceptor horde out of boredom. If they're using their space then atro...
ah fergeddit |
Align Planet1
Cognitive Deficit
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:26:12 -
[914] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:Forget renting. Extortion is where it's at now.
"Small Group" sets up shop. Reavers, PL, BL, NPC Dwellers (pick one, or more than one) extract bribes from "Small Group" to not reinforce their **** every day, forever.
Sounds fun. Or small group sets up in NPC null and demands isk to not send out an interceptor fleet every day to reinforce the big bad giants unattended **** every day... it's like anti renting.
While that may be possible, Big Bad Giant probably isn't going to lose her system to those interceptors. In fact, effective harassment doesn't require rolling sov at all. It just requires making the sov holder do something tedious. Every day. Forever.
So Big Bad can devote a few people to countering the harassers while the bulk of the alliance goes about its business, until the harassers get bored.
"Small Group" may not have that option. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
121
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:29:39 -
[915] - Quote
Align Planet1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:Forget renting. Extortion is where it's at now.
"Small Group" sets up shop. Reavers, PL, BL, NPC Dwellers (pick one, or more than one) extract bribes from "Small Group" to not reinforce their **** every day, forever.
Sounds fun. Or small group sets up in NPC null and demands isk to not send out an interceptor fleet every day to reinforce the big bad giants unattended **** every day... it's like anti renting. While that may be possible, Big Bad Giant probably isn't going to lose her system to those interceptors. In fact, effective harassment doesn't require rolling sov at all. It just requires making the sov holder do something tedious. Every day. Forever. My point exactly, just RF it, make them turn up to the timer, go RF a completely different bunch of systems...
And the point is that ANYONE can then use one of those RF timers to actually stage a fight (or multiple fights) or if they have enough of them, just turn up in a T1 frig and flip the system uncontested because the big bad giants fleet all decided to setup on the otherside of New Eden and can't jump more than once every 30mins without increasing their fatigue timers...
It works so nicely with the jump fatigue mechanics, genius :) |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
145
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:30:02 -
[916] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:I'm not a 100+ mil sp player, but if I was id be pissed.
And way is that, :) Those are best moves ccp could do to sov.
Only thing that hurts is that you can't dock supers. If you could dock Supers and Titans in station, no one would give a fuc*
i think maybe Bring Tracking Titans back :DD?? Hmmm That would be fun would it not? they can't win the sov war with those now any way xD
Also it would not hurst with Fighter bombers could shoot Pos's now ;/ Make them less usles Plzzzzz |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4208
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:31:00 -
[917] - Quote
Brother Mercury wrote:This patch makes it nearly worthless (save for POS BASH) to log in supers or dreads. j
....
FYI: Supers can use gates now. FYI: Part of the new Sov System requires being able to move around. You can do this slowly in a heavy fleet (with capital support), or quickly in a more agile, but weaker fleet. Adapt or die. FYI: Supers were designed to be anti-capital ships, not I-win buttons against all fleets.
|
Tykonderoga
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:31:12 -
[918] - Quote
The prime time idea is garbage. The module to reinforce structures will be abused by ceptor pilots with pirate implants or a bazzillion people in ceptors. Think CCP! I know that no one in the company actually plays the game anymore, but think! |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30735
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:31:23 -
[919] - Quote
The short contest duration, and the situation with the station. I am trying to figure this out and from what I can tell the best response with regards to the Halitosis link is... start subcap and capital halitosis links at the same time, so that the process starts with subcap links while capital links have time to cycle.
My question is, can the subcap links be stopped once the capital links start their second cycle? Like, is this an effective way to make a handoff from subcap to cap links.
I ask because the only problem with the capital link nerf is the run-up cycle, and after that it's what you want anyway.
I haven't tried it yet, but I'm curious what kind of tank you can keep with two triage Archons keeping themselves capped up using injects (rather than passive).
Are you sure it's as easy for attackers as you think? I see a new Halitosis brick tank Archon meta happening, possibly paired with a 750k EHP Damnation to run the initial subcap link.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4208
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:33:20 -
[920] - Quote
Tykonderoga wrote:The prime time idea is garbage. The module to reinforce structures will be abused by ceptor pilots with pirate implants or a bazzillion people in ceptors. Think CCP! I know that no one in the company actually plays the game anymore, but think!
Why is it that people think a fleet of ceptors is uncounterable? |
|
Anthar Thebess
944
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:33:31 -
[921] - Quote
Why not tie indexes to the vulnerability timer? Higher indexes , shorter timer. To benefit groups that really use their space. If in 90% of your systems you have at least level 4 index .... you gain something more in terms of defensive measures.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
rsantos
Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:35:44 -
[922] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:My initial thought is that this hugely, hugely favors attackers. Anyone without massive support from allies will get instantly steamrolled.
In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon.
Isn't that what we have today! |
Align Planet1
Cognitive Deficit
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:35:49 -
[923] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:Forget renting. Extortion is where it's at now.
"Small Group" sets up shop. Reavers, PL, BL, NPC Dwellers (pick one, or more than one) extract bribes from "Small Group" to not reinforce their **** every day, forever.
Sounds fun. You summed it up. While we don't really want more space what we do want is control over other people. Extortion/renting rackets will be harder to actually make work, because actually defending space will take actual work. Even patient people will stop paying protection money quite fast if every punk in the tri-region area RFs their stuff daily and they can't get any use of the space they are paying for. Sov space needs to be worth more, if more than a handful of large and organized groups are going to be the putative residents here.
Not sure if I'm understanding your argument fully, but I think you conclusion is right on the money. |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:35:59 -
[924] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Brother Mercury wrote:This patch makes it nearly worthless (save for POS BASH) to log in supers or dreads. j
....
FYI: Supers can use gates now. FYI: Part of the new Sov System requires being able to move around. You can do this slowly in a heavy fleet (with capital support), or quickly in a more agile, but weaker fleet. Adapt or die. FYI: Supers were designed to be anti-capital ships, not I-win buttons against all fleets.
Why would anyone use capitals after this patch i think is the real question. |
Dramakazie
Da' Node
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:36:24 -
[925] - Quote
Dear CCP please remove the goontards from your payrole ,They are introducing wildly re-tarded stuffs to sov mechanics .
8=========D U muchly D |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4208
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:37:29 -
[926] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Why not tie indexes to the vulnerability timer? Higher indexes , shorter timer. To benefit groups that really use their space. If in 90% of your systems you have at least level 4 index .... you gain something more in terms of defensive measures.
Feel like I'm quoting myself:
Highly used system: 4 hr vulnerability window. Unused system: 12 hr vulnerability window.
Please make this happen! It opens up the door for assault on a unused but claimed system by more timezones!
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4208
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:39:44 -
[927] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Brother Mercury wrote:This patch makes it nearly worthless (save for POS BASH) to log in supers or dreads. j
....
FYI: Supers can use gates now. FYI: Part of the new Sov System requires being able to move around. You can do this slowly in a heavy fleet (with capital support), or quickly in a more agile, but weaker fleet. Adapt or die. FYI: Supers were designed to be anti-capital ships, not I-win buttons against all fleets. Why would anyone use capitals after this patch i think is the real question.
BS gangs use Triage Carriers for support. Enemy escalates with dreads to kill triage. You re-escalate with supers to kill capitals...
Dreads will also be used to RF POS's.
There is a use, they just won't be used as much for capturing stations and destroying IHUBs. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:40:28 -
[928] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Proton Stars wrote:I'm not a 100+ mil sp player, but if I was id be pissed. And way is that, :) Those are best moves ccp could do to sov. Only thing that hurts is that you can't dock supers. If you could dock Supers and Titans in station, no one would give a fuc* i think maybe Bring Tracking Titans back :DD?? Hmmm That would be fun would it not? they can't win the sov war with those now any way xD Also it would not hurst with Fighter bombers could shoot Pos's now ;/ Make them less usles Plzzzzz
Bring back AOE doomsdays. Because it makes as much sense as the rest of these changes |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
121
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:40:30 -
[929] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Brother Mercury wrote:This patch makes it nearly worthless (save for POS BASH) to log in supers or dreads. j
....
FYI: Supers can use gates now. FYI: Part of the new Sov System requires being able to move around. You can do this slowly in a heavy fleet (with capital support), or quickly in a more agile, but weaker fleet. Adapt or die. FYI: Supers were designed to be anti-capital ships, not I-win buttons against all fleets. Why would anyone use capitals after this patch i think is the real question.
If a point is contested by a subcap fleet then potentially a capital might be able to RF/steal the command point whilst still able to tank the dps on grid where smaller ships don't have enough of a local tank to and explode before their first cycle is complete. edit: I also think marauders are suitable for this task where the fleet sizes are smaller.
Also dropping caps in (via cyno or just through local gates) to attain grid dominance and enable a capture is still a strategic use of caps...except you'll need at least 5 cap fleets if you want to be able to show up at every command point fight for one structure. |
Gregor Parud
Ordo Ardish
1242
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:41:01 -
[930] - Quote
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. |
|
Align Planet1
Cognitive Deficit
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:41:59 -
[931] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:Forget renting. Extortion is where it's at now.
"Small Group" sets up shop. Reavers, PL, BL, NPC Dwellers (pick one, or more than one) extract bribes from "Small Group" to not reinforce their **** every day, forever.
Sounds fun. Or small group sets up in NPC null and demands isk to not send out an interceptor fleet every day to reinforce the big bad giants unattended **** every day... it's like anti renting. While that may be possible, Big Bad Giant probably isn't going to lose her system to those interceptors. In fact, effective harassment doesn't require rolling sov at all. It just requires making the sov holder do something tedious. Every day. Forever. My point exactly, just RF it, make them turn up to the timer, go RF a completely different bunch of systems... And the point is that ANYONE can then use one of those RF timers to actually stage a fight (or multiple fights) or if they have enough of them, just turn up in a T1 frig and flip the system uncontested because the big bad giants fleet all decided to setup on the otherside of New Eden and can't jump more than once every 30mins without increasing their fatigue timers... It works so nicely with the jump fatigue mechanics, genius :)
I have to think about your point some more, but at the moment, I think you're underestimating the sheer manpower at Big Bad's disposal. Big Bad can defend the home front, and still engage in first-timer harassment all over Eve.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30735
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:42:10 -
[932] - Quote
But then I recall what Sion wrote about social structures and I am
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Aspringer Morani
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:42:12 -
[933] - Quote
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~
Whats to keep large groups from dropping 400 people on the random station and taking it? Nothing.. This will just help the large groups. I guess CCP will just follow the money to 40k accounts logged in, but only 12k people playing. Enjoy your empty nul-sec. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:42:46 -
[934] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Cr Turist wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Brother Mercury wrote:This patch makes it nearly worthless (save for POS BASH) to log in supers or dreads. j
....
FYI: Supers can use gates now. FYI: Part of the new Sov System requires being able to move around. You can do this slowly in a heavy fleet (with capital support), or quickly in a more agile, but weaker fleet. Adapt or die. FYI: Supers were designed to be anti-capital ships, not I-win buttons against all fleets. Why would anyone use capitals after this patch i think is the real question. BS gangs use Triage Carriers for support. Enemy escalates with dreads to kill triage. You re-escalate with supers to kill capitals... Dreads will also be used to RF POS's. There is a use, they just won't be used as much for capturing stations and destroying IHUBs.
In none of those situations would you choose to drop caps over dropping more ishtars. Because apha'ing fleets is still very possible and triage carrier would die eventually.
Also bombers>dreads for pos
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1037
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:43:18 -
[935] - Quote
You people mean to tell me that, in all your infinite loophole finding, game breaking ways of abusing mechanics, it's completely impossible to kill a piece of paper going 11km/s? Surely some warp bubbles to shut off the MWD and some well timed bombs would make short work of an Interceptor?
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Align Planet1
Cognitive Deficit
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:46:18 -
[936] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:You people mean to tell me that, in all your infinite loophole finding, game breaking ways of abusing mechanics, it's completely impossible to kill a piece of paper going 11km/s? Surely some warp bubbles to shut off the MWD and some well timed bombs would make short work of an Interceptor?
Bubbles shut off MWD's?
News to me.
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:46:21 -
[937] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:You people mean to tell me that, in all your infinite loophole finding, game breaking ways of abusing mechanics, it's completely impossible to kill a piece of paper going 11km/s? Surely some warp bubbles to shut off the MWD and some well timed bombs would make short work of an Interceptor?
Ceptors can't get bubbled you fool.
Also no one is suggesting 1 ceptors to rule them all but instead 30-40 of them to re-enforce a whole region in roughly 40mins |
Lt Shard
Team Pizza Good at this Game
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:46:47 -
[938] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote: warp bubbles to shut off the MWD
m8
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
185
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:47:05 -
[939] - Quote
First thing i can say is I can not really agree wth "prime time" thing. But if your prime is different then someone else.....well you can still gurilla warfare their space to reduce their SOV until your people start waking upto not only defend but take the fight to them for command nodes.
Now as to the massive amount of non-strategic thinking out there. Titans....could have a use as Fleet Carriers if properly supported....they have a HUGE Maintenance Bay, an ok Fleet Hangar.
Will they die unsupported? probably.....but then you mix in Carriers and SuperCarrieers and all their support ships(subcaps) for the projection of power and taking those Command nodes or actual attacks on structures.
Have to get past your blob mentatlity and start planning and thinking tactically and strategically now. I believe that is the point CCP is making here....NULL Sov is about Empire Building and creating/mainting a true player based Goverment in this game.
You can defend areas where your peeps live much easier than some out of the way place you own that no one lives in. Not to mention I dont think CCP is fond of the Renter Meta in the game......they want to give the lower guys a chance to take that Sov for themselves. Now the question(s) is......Do you have the resources and infrastructure to deend against an uprising and also be prepared in other areas as well at the same time.
Sounds to me that some Nullers need to start fleshing out real Combat units.....built around specific tactics and being permanently based in places an alliance wishes to keep. With that being said....over all though i will most likely not live in nullsec again with any of my toons or my main.....I Like these changes and look forward to th possibilty of conflict that ensue from them.
Remember: If your not willing to use it and DEFEND it actively then you do not desreve it.
If a renter uprising occurs....sure someone like NCdot or PL or what not can get butthurt and go smash them to retake the SOV.....the question should be Why? At this point....a Renter should be asking why do we need to pay these overstuffed turkeys rent when we can just own our system ourselves? These changes will make this possible....for those of strategic thinking anyway. Frigates or dessies....get some anti-frg dessies or cruisers....drone boats what not to kill them.....bring the Battlecruisers, T3's, and Battlships. Keep Caps and Supercaps on standby or use very few of them. Time to make real Fleets it seems to me and get your heads out of your Afocal point of Contact. War is not easy and it never should be. Glad to see these proposed changes by CCP already shaking Nullers up.
|
GOB the Magician
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:48:27 -
[940] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:You people mean to tell me that, in all your infinite loophole finding, game breaking ways of abusing mechanics, it's completely impossible to kill a piece of paper going 11km/s? Surely some warp bubbles to shut off the MWD and some well timed bombs would make short work of an Interceptor?
you should apply to work for ccp |
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2062
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:49:15 -
[941] - Quote
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.
sounds like Florida and stand your ground laws.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
358
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:49:50 -
[942] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:Why would anyone use capitals after this patch i think is the real question. Not gonna tell you, but I do offer a fair amount of ISK for some dreads you may or may not be setting up for a firesale during this ruckus. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2062
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:50:04 -
[943] - Quote
Align Planet1 wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:You people mean to tell me that, in all your infinite loophole finding, game breaking ways of abusing mechanics, it's completely impossible to kill a piece of paper going 11km/s? Surely some warp bubbles to shut off the MWD and some well timed bombs would make short work of an Interceptor? Bubbles shut off MWD's? News to me.
no but linked true sansha scrams on a lechasis doo.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Degalo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:50:07 -
[944] - Quote
Love it.
A lot of people are whining about the prime time affecting their ability to play the game, but in reality, it only affects their ability to participate in a defensive sov war (if they are active outside their alliance prime time).
There's no reason to believe that all content following the patch will be exclusively sov warfare - there will always be plenty of content for those who look for it. Roams, offensive ops on another alliance's sov, pos warfare, etc.
"Yeah, but FC, I don't want to go 40 jumps to find someone to shoot. What do?"
Maybe you should reconsider your goals and whether they line up with an alliance that still wants to pretend everything is exactly the same as it was in Dominion sov. Reconsider your blue lists. If it takes 40 jumps to get out of blue space, then that's your (alliance's) problem, not a problem of the game design. Reset your neighbors. Shoot them. Find a wh to another region. Shoot them. Shoot the people in the wh.
There is plenty of content out there - but you may have to step outside your triage/titan bridge range and not rely on 30,000 blues to get to the best of it. |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:51:13 -
[945] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Cr Turist wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Brother Mercury wrote:This patch makes it nearly worthless (save for POS BASH) to log in supers or dreads. j
....
FYI: Supers can use gates now. FYI: Part of the new Sov System requires being able to move around. You can do this slowly in a heavy fleet (with capital support), or quickly in a more agile, but weaker fleet. Adapt or die. FYI: Supers were designed to be anti-capital ships, not I-win buttons against all fleets. Why would anyone use capitals after this patch i think is the real question. BS gangs use Triage Carriers for support. Enemy escalates with dreads to kill triage. You re-escalate with supers to kill capitals... Dreads will also be used to RF POS's. There is a use, they just won't be used as much for capturing stations and destroying IHUBs.
ok still goes back to what i said before but instead of saying capitals lets say battleships. being apart of a major alliance i can tell you in 0.0 you very very rarely see battleship fleets. mostly because of bombers but thats a whole other ball of ccp fix this.
i think the end of this is that you have people in CCP that think capitals shouldn't be around (looking at your CCP Rise) and are now taking steps to make them less and less useful by taking away the key roles.
alot of people love subcap pvp me being one of them but capitals and super-capitals have fans to. you wanna sit in lowsec and play with your cepter that's fine but when u come to 0.0 you should have to worry about titans, supers, and other caps. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
123
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:51:25 -
[946] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:You people mean to tell me that, in all your infinite loophole finding, game breaking ways of abusing mechanics, it's completely impossible to kill a piece of paper going 11km/s? Surely some warp bubbles to shut off the MWD and some well timed bombs would make short work of an Interceptor? Ceptors can't get bubbled you fool. Also no one is suggesting 1 ceptors to rule them all but instead 30-40 of them to re-enforce a whole region in roughly 40mins And they can be countered by someone just undocking and sitting at zero in an atron with it's own link - or at least force them to engage in a fight at which point they can't just kite like crazy - assuming of course that the space is actually used by the inhabitants and they can locally source a pvp group to deal with 30-40 interceptors.
Now if the group is spread far and wide and doesn't have locally sourced PvPers but requires defence by big daddy to come from X number of jumps, then yeah they're screwed |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
588
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:52:52 -
[947] - Quote
needs destructible stations
W-Space Realtor
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2062
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:53:11 -
[948] - Quote
I think stations services should be hackable during non prime time... and prime time should be based on occupancy.... you dont actually live in the system its pretty much always vulnerable... if you have maxed out occupancy on that said system then you get the 4 hour window.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:54:30 -
[949] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:You people mean to tell me that, in all your infinite loophole finding, game breaking ways of abusing mechanics, it's completely impossible to kill a piece of paper going 11km/s? Surely some warp bubbles to shut off the MWD and some well timed bombs would make short work of an Interceptor? Bubbles shut off MWD's? News to me. no but linked true sansha scrams on a lechasis doo.
Your gasp of game mechanics and meta is so great you too should work for ccp. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
255
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:57:25 -
[950] - Quote
Sieonigh wrote:S3ND3TH 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~ goon tears are by far the sweetest tears i cant wait to fill my cup with FA's
Red Solo cup, I fill you up Let's have a party, let's have a party I love you red Solo cup, I lift you up, Proceed to party, proceed to party
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2062
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:58:20 -
[951] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:
Bubbles shut off MWD's?
News to me.
no but linked true sansha scrams on a lechasis doo. Your gasp of game mechanics and meta is so great you too should work for ccp.
why thank you kind sir who in no way is being facetious
Proton Stars wrote:Why is no one else concerned that GM's are once again playing in and influencing sov warfare with hidden alts.
Cause that went so well before in BoB, didint it!
'Oi Fozzie im poor, spawn me an officer in this belt please'
'Oi Fozziee, Have a look on that ccp graph and tell me the best t3's to build over a 6 month period'
'Oi Fozzie, Develop me a sov system that breaks the current gameplay cause im too lazy to try to take sov and invest me time right now'
after reading that i got to say you need to take that brain medicine brosef
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
mr dumpface
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:58:32 -
[952] - Quote
Zaporozh wrote:Love most of these changes however this Prime Time Timer needs to go away. Its going to make Multi TZ alliance be useless since the timers will only come out at one time. Entosis link needs to be a siege No reps, No moving, No ability to triage or siege. As well as make it very easy to see which ship is running the mod on the structure maybe even have it yell in local the name of the person like the ESS.
wow have you guys been given a script??
every nc poster has been saying the exact same phrase almost word for word |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1544
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:58:35 -
[953] - Quote
UNLEASH THE PROC
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Zuel Aaoiric
Obsidian Oracle
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:58:36 -
[954] - Quote
I love it when CCP is willing to make some bold moves. It needs revitalization out side of the also much needed bugs and interface work they have been soully concentrating on over the last years since Crucible came out.
I have a concern...
Ever since the Walking in Stations fiasco, we have seen a new direction for Eve... one that has adopted a more main stream feel. Once upon a time Eve was a bold move to incorporate real world harshness in a thrilling unforgiving world...
Now it feels more and more like an arcade game... Where once we had the reality if we wanted something in Eve it would take real time and work and logistics; now we are introducing unexplained explosions of sovereignty structures and unrealistic Command Node anomalies.
I see the fun in this direction and I don't want to discourage it, but if we are not careful CCP will be taking the game where we owned power, space, and influence and making it into a money machine theme park. It has been dumbed down with each release - replacing realism and hard work with gimmicky arcade fun. We have enough arcade games out there. Don't slay the lone wolf CCP!
I don't mean to kill the idea, but lets make it something that will work in the Realistic Wild West setting we have enjoyed for years prior. How about we keep the race, for Command Node anomalies in essence, but make it something of a race to ignite sovereignty structures that add to each sides bonuses...
We could have a structure that controls the local chat, one that enhances targeting time, one that provides a mobile lock on ships like the one concord uses for felons. How about we give structures that allows for bonuses like the wormholes enjoy (while allied ships are in range). We could introduce siege type warfare by creating structures of shields in space with layered tactical advantage available to both sides to deploy.
Once we have sufficient structures to command the tech of a system we can then overload and command the IHub and TCU and ultimately take sovereignty.
To meat sovereignty reality there can be no question as to who won the war. If the other side has not been driven out they shouldn't loose.
I like the idea of using Entosis Link units but I think it would be much more effective if you have to suffer the consequences of not being able to warp - than you should also enjoy the enhanced remote power of the structure as well. |
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:59:34 -
[955] - Quote
Brother Mercury wrote:This patch makes it nearly worthless (save for POS BASH) to log in supers or dreads. j
Let's see what some fun scenarios will happen if you attempt to use supercaps and capitals in this new sov:
Scenario 1:
Attacker comes and starts entosis link on structure. Want to use your caps to defend against the initial entosis link? Nope, never-mind too slow, you'll never be able to get there in the minutes it takes to reinforce, and even if you do get there in time and your alliance drops a cap fleet on grid near the attacker's target structure -- JUST KIDDING -- the attackers were entosis linking a bait structure, the structure they really wanted to reinforce was in another constellation. Have fun trying to come and stop this one with your caps because now you have space aids and half your fleet (read: supers and titans) can't gate jump. Congratulations you've just wasted an hour of your life moving a capital fleet and then waiting for space aids to go away.
Scenario 2:
Your structure is reinforced and it is now in the "command node" part of the new sov mechanics. Your alliance has prepared though and has two moderate size sub-cap fleets in addition to a good size supercap/cap fleet to help capture the nodes. Your FC finds the first node first and your subcap fleet gets on grid only to find the attackers have arrived first. It's a close fight so your alliance calls for 1/2 the capital fleet to jump in. As soon as the enemy sees the capitals land, they turn tail with minimal loses and head to the next command node two jumps away. Your capital ships have space aids and your supercaps can't jump gates, but you have to send your sub-caps regardless or you'll lose the next node. Now your supercap/capital fleet is sitting, without subcap support, in the first command node essentially doing nothing while they wait for their space aids to go away.
It's OK your FC says: we have more capitals and another subcap group. Great! So your fleet gets to the next node but the attackers have large numbers so you are forced again to drop the rest of your capitals/supercaps to guarantee that you'll hold the command node. When the enemy attackers see your second capital fleet land, they again immediately "LOL" in local and go to the next node with their entire force.
Now your alliance has two split capital groups with no or little subcap support (because you need to compete for the other nodes) sitting in space with their space aids. You might say: "so what, your now have won a whopping 2 combat nodes man!" But, meanwhile the attackers are loling around the constellation going to the next node with all their forces still intact and with no capitals (still potentially in reserve) and don't give a flying f*ck about your two capital groups because there are EIGHT more nodes to take and they can just LOL out and peace if you bring your big guns.
You can take the fundamentals of these scenarios and slightly change them, but the impacts on supercap and capital use is the same: what is the point of using supercaps or dreads? If there are always at least 10 command nodes (with the potential of there being many more) why even bother? What logical attacker or defender would even bother trying to use supercaps to defend 1 or 2 nodes when there's 8 more to mess with and dropping your supercaps on any 1 or 2 nodes would leave them in an exposed postion.
I dont know how to fix it but there NEEDS to be a valid reason/opportunities to use supercaps and dreads and titans.
You're ignoring (maybe not ware) of the fact, that defenders always capture command nodes at the minimal time (10 min), while attackers get the defense-delay (up to x4!). Plus, as long as the defender has at least one ship with E-link in range, on grid, not ECM'ed or damped, the attacker doesn't get any progress. Capping a command node as a defender will always take between 12 and 20 minutes of uncontestet capture time (one cycle prep time plus 10 min actual capture time). A Capital with T1 E-link would take 30 min, but who in his right mind would deny the shiny capital the T2 version of the module? Due to occupancy defensive boni, the attacker will always be at a time disadvantage.
What's stopping you as the defender from distributing your caps and supers all over the constellation, instead of the 2 fleets you mentioned? (how big can a constellation be? 6-8 systems?) How many caps and supers does one need to pose a serious headache to any fleet without capitals? |
Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:59:37 -
[956] - Quote
All they're doing is making it even more aids to take a system, and practically impossible to do anything outside of your own TZ.
All you need is a cloud of interceptors with the t2 (250km range one) loaded up with sebos and a mwd and orbit far enough away so you can't smartbomb the blob and keep traversal up. Get a few fleets of these (only need 30 or so duders in each), load in some benny hill music and glhf.
It's not so much you can't kill the interceptors, as much as killing a single fleet of 30 interceptors before 10-40 minutes is a pain in the ****. Now look at killing 10 fleets of them reinforcing all your **** in a region and this mechanic is insanely annoying and most of the targets will get reinforced anyway.
This strategy also favors the larger alliances in that the smaller ones won't be able to chase down the masses of intys the larger ones can throw at a region so I don't get why so many of these small alliances are looking forward to this thinking they will be able to hold space.
From the other devblog" We are well aware that Nullsec empires have mastered the strategy of weaponizing their opponentGÇÖs boredom" so now we'll give you a way to weaponize your opponent's frustration. This will lead to quicker burn out than blueballing.
Edit: And for those who keep saying "well you can stop their progress by putting your own sov lazor on it" are ********. Then it just becomes a battle of who is willing to stay logged on longer. The only way this could possibly work is if it was a cruiser size and above. If it can be put on an inty it's the end of sov warfare and the beginning of sov trolling. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1007
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:00:44 -
[957] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Brother Mercury wrote:This patch makes it nearly worthless (save for POS BASH) to log in supers or dreads. j
.... FYI: Supers can use gates now. FYI: Part of the new Sov System requires being able to move around. You can do this slowly in a heavy fleet (with capital support), or quickly in a more agile, but weaker fleet. Adapt or die. FYI: Supers were designed to be anti-capital ships, not I-win buttons against all fleets. Why would anyone use capitals after this patch i think is the real question. capital RR support? I think Rooks and Kings has shown us how effective that can be.
POSs still exist and are still critical to 0.0 operation. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:01:04 -
[958] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Proton Stars wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:
Bubbles shut off MWD's?
News to me.
no but linked true sansha scrams on a lechasis doo. Your gasp of game mechanics and meta is so great you too should work for ccp. why thank you kind sir who in no way is being facetious
My opinion that you are as clueless as current gm's was not only sincere but heartfelt too.
|
Zuel Aaoiric
Obsidian Oracle
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:02:17 -
[959] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:needs destructible stations
Agreed! Eve isn't Eve if you put these arbitrary limitations on the mechanics that make no realistic sense. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2062
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:02:32 -
[960] - Quote
Talbrys Narentyr wrote:All they're doing is making it even more aids to take a system, and practically impossible to do anything outside of your own TZ.
All you need is a cloud of interceptors with the t2 (250km range one) loaded up with sebos and a mwd and orbit far enough away so you can't smartbomb the blob and keep traversal up. Get a few fleets of these (only need 30 or so duders in each), load in some benny hill music and glhf.
It's not so much you can't kill the interceptors, as much as killing a single fleet of 30 interceptors before 10-40 minutes is a pain in the ****. Now look at killing 10 fleets of them reinforcing all your **** in a region and this mechanic is insanely annoying and most of the targets will get reinforced anyway.
This strategy also favors the larger alliances in that the smaller ones won't be able to chase down the masses of intys the larger ones can throw at a region so I don't get why so many of these small alliances are looking forward to this thinking they will be able to hold space.
From the other devblog" We are well aware that Nullsec empires have mastered the strategy of weaponizing their opponentGÇÖs boredom" so now we'll give you a way to weaponize your opponent's frustration. This will lead to quicker burn out than blueballing.
pass over that crystal ball bro... i like how you saw into the future to see that frigs can actually fit the mod.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
|
Sigras
Conglomo
1007
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:02:50 -
[961] - Quote
Talbrys Narentyr wrote:All they're doing is making it even more aids to take a system, and practically impossible to do anything outside of your own TZ.
All you need is a cloud of interceptors with the t2 (250km range one) loaded up with sebos and a mwd and orbit far enough away so you can't smartbomb the blob and keep traversal up. Get a few fleets of these (only need 30 or so duders in each), load in some benny hill music and glhf.
It's not so much you can't kill the interceptors, as much as killing a single fleet of 30 interceptors before 10-40 minutes is a pain in the ****. Now look at killing 10 fleets of them reinforcing all your **** in a region and this mechanic is insanely annoying and most of the targets will get reinforced anyway.
This strategy also favors the larger alliances in that the smaller ones won't be able to chase down the masses of intys the larger ones can throw at a region so I don't get why so many of these small alliances are looking forward to this thinking they will be able to hold space.
From the other devblog" We are well aware that Nullsec empires have mastered the strategy of weaponizing their opponentGÇÖs boredom" so now we'll give you a way to weaponize your opponent's frustration. This will lead to quicker burn out than blueballing. Did ANYONE read the part of the blog where they said you can prevent a takeover of your structure with a friendly Entosis link?!
please people, read first, think second, and post last. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:02:59 -
[962] - Quote
Talbrys Narentyr wrote:All they're doing is making it even more aids to take a system, and practically impossible to do anything outside of your own TZ.
All you need is a cloud of interceptors with the t2 (250km range one) loaded up with sebos and a mwd and orbit far enough away so you can't smartbomb the blob and keep traversal up. Get a few fleets of these (only need 30 or so duders in each), load in some benny hill music and glhf.
It's not so much you can't kill the interceptors, as much as killing a single fleet of 30 interceptors before 10-40 minutes is a pain in the ****. Now look at killing 10 fleets of them reinforcing all your **** in a region and this mechanic is insanely annoying and most of the targets will get reinforced anyway.
This strategy also favors the larger alliances in that the smaller ones won't be able to chase down the masses of intys the larger ones can throw at a region so I don't get why so many of these small alliances are looking forward to this thinking they will be able to hold space.
From the other devblog" We are well aware that Nullsec empires have mastered the strategy of weaponizing their opponentGÇÖs boredom" so now we'll give you a way to weaponize your opponent's frustration. This will lead to quicker burn out than blueballing.
Quoting because it's the first bit of sense for 10 pages, my own posts included. |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:03:45 -
[963] - Quote
Zuel Aaoiric wrote:Axloth Okiah wrote:needs destructible stations Agreed! Eve isn't Eve if you put these arbitrary limitations on the mechanics that make no realistic sense.
Might become easier to introduce that once the bears, renters and blocks have emptied their outposts and moved assets to npc stations.
|
Onslaughtor
Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems
106
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:03:57 -
[964] - Quote
I think the only problem I see is the prime time. But its not in the idea but in the suggested implementation. It should be based on corp. That way the whole alliance can help but the corp who's system it is is the main contestant.
So the prime time hours are based on corp and not alliance, but the whole alliance can help as is currently suggested. In this way the corp living in the system is more important.
TLDR: make prime time a crop thing |
Migui X'hyrrn
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
230
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:05:08 -
[965] - Quote
I see a fundamental problem in the sov revamp and is that we are having it in small pieces. They have a lot of work behind and I won't deny that but you can't take significative data and analyze based on a situation where you are half way to the end of the project.
Phoebe left us with a horrible sov system and a horrible way of traveling. How comes CCP thinks that this will encourage people taking the effort in grinding structures? No one will move a finger until everything is figured out.
This system is more dynamic and has a lot of potential but as of today, it feels like a ton of effort to have exactly what. What are the benefits of the so called localism and sov occupancy? You just have more people piled up because you need good indexes but how this people is going to have a steady income, how alliances are going to be able to fund their activities and whatnot.
You can't circumvent the metagame and people will do as much as they can to keep their status quo untouched.
Lets be real. No one has 40k friends because they love friendship. You need to get your **** in order and feel that you are safe, that you can comfortably escalate a fight if needed. You need friends to help you when someone else knocks at your door . Otherwise you just sit and watch big guys destroying your stuff at their will. This will keep happening no matter how fancy the "capture the flag" is. People will still have allies, and powers will still be there, the big picture isn't likely going to change much.
Ok now lets talk about how I'm going to stockpile 4k nerds in a couple of constellations without having an aneurysm over destroyed MTU's. No, better don't talk about that.
Lets talk about grinding a sov that is worth the effort. Lets talk about having sov that makes the risk worth it. I foresee a future where truesec, moon goo, minerals, industry and capital ships are rebalanced. But until then, we are forced to play with a 25% of the picture and we are forced to take conclussions based on that. Which will lead to false conclussions.
In September we will be wondering huge coalitions are still a thing.
Since we lost the war versus the CFC, drama has been the major conflict driver in New Eden. You can't expect a huge coalition to collapse to give content to the rest of EVE. The idea behind making more small fights is cool and all, but meanwhile we speak about HOW we take the sov, the alliance leaders are wondering WHY we are doing that. Whats the purpose if it will mean a lot of extra work for that little return?
Vast empty regions that are held because of their moons are already a thing. Big entities will let little guys hold their sov. But god forgives them if they come after their R64s and such. It will be as it is right now. Nothing will essentially change as we will adapt to anything CCP comes up with.
If CCP wants 0.0 to change, to be diversified, big, healthy with PVP and PVE then you need to provide that. In no particular order. You need to provide a steady income source for your guys WHILE you allow small gang pvp in that territory. A bit difficult, eh? You need to provide alliances with passive income to do their alliance stuff because the floor between entities with trillions in their wallets and the rest is massive. You need as well to improve local production and harvesting of resources. All of this in a 0.0 like Catch? Our members struggle to make money here because there are hostiles everywhere, and it is a ****** region in terms of PVE. Go to the north to see AFK ishtars. Go to the east to see dumb renters ratting in supers, etc.
I am eager to see what this comes up to. But at this point, as of today, I see a change in how we are going to play the game of sov, but i don't see the mighty return, the risk vs reward, the encourage to settle down huge wars that have impact on the media. As I see things now, and I would like to be wrong, nothing is going to change at all.
And I wish I could help to change it.
Migui is running for CSM10!
|
Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:06:09 -
[966] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Talbrys Narentyr wrote:All they're doing is making it even more aids to take a system, and practically impossible to do anything outside of your own TZ.
All you need is a cloud of interceptors with the t2 (250km range one) loaded up with sebos and a mwd and orbit far enough away so you can't smartbomb the blob and keep traversal up. Get a few fleets of these (only need 30 or so duders in each), load in some benny hill music and glhf.
It's not so much you can't kill the interceptors, as much as killing a single fleet of 30 interceptors before 10-40 minutes is a pain in the ****. Now look at killing 10 fleets of them reinforcing all your **** in a region and this mechanic is insanely annoying and most of the targets will get reinforced anyway.
This strategy also favors the larger alliances in that the smaller ones won't be able to chase down the masses of intys the larger ones can throw at a region so I don't get why so many of these small alliances are looking forward to this thinking they will be able to hold space.
From the other devblog" We are well aware that Nullsec empires have mastered the strategy of weaponizing their opponentGÇÖs boredom" so now we'll give you a way to weaponize your opponent's frustration. This will lead to quicker burn out than blueballing. Did ANYONE read the part of the blog where they said you can prevent a takeover of your structure with a friendly Entosis link?! please people, read first, think second, and post last.
Edit: And for those who keep saying "well you can stop their progress by putting your own sov lazor on it" are ********. Then it just becomes a battle of who is willing to stay logged on longer. The only way this could possibly work is if it was a cruiser size and above. If it can be put on an inty it's the end of sov warfare and the beginning of sov trolling.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2062
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:07:00 -
[967] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Proton Stars wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:
Bubbles shut off MWD's?
News to me.
no but linked true sansha scrams on a lechasis doo. Your gasp of game mechanics and meta is so great you too should work for ccp. why thank you kind sir who in no way is being facetious My opinion that you are as clueless as current gm's was not only sincere but heartfelt too.
so then you think scrams dont turn off the mwd? and who the hell said an inty could actually fit the mod in the first place?
i think this might be the reason why: Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.
that needs to be adjusted make it a battleship only mod.... also make it so you cant turn on bastion or triage or siege if you still allow for bigger then battleships to fit it...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:07:24 -
[968] - Quote
Wrote a few responses earlier today and came to a realization.
Every time they do a major dev blgo in the last 2 years basically I find myself liking the game less and less. I also know im one of many who feel this way. You would think that sometime in the last 2 years CCP could have made a major change that I liked but doesn't seem like it. (im not quitting the game, not yet at least, still pretty addicted + 2 many friends), but if a large part of the player population feels the same way I do it will not bode well for the future of nullsec and to a larger whole the future of eve.
Sov changes were ALWAYS going to be contentious, but the jist of the changes seem to suggest that CCP didnt really listen to very much of anything the existing null leadership said, which is extremely disappointing as we were your focus group that had a pretty good feel fo the pulse of the issue. I hope CCP can wade through this, and re imagine alto of whats going on here. |
McDarila
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:07:25 -
[969] - Quote
One question did you think this through at all...
What null sec power block would be willing to field 1000 interceptors(crusers, size does not matter) with a 20 million isk mod in any time zone. And go reinforce an entire region for the luls, in just a few hours.
Directed at the NPC null sec residents where do you think the power blocks would move to if even I see this going on. Region on farm from NPC null hope you like you new 4 to 10 thousand not blue residents. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
126
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:09:08 -
[970] - Quote
Talbrys Narentyr wrote:Edit: And for those who keep saying "well you can stop their progress by putting your own sov lazor on it" are ********. Then it just becomes a battle of who is willing to stay logged on longer. The only way this could possibly work is if it was a cruiser size and above. If it can be put on an inty it's the end of sov warfare and the beginning of sov trolling.
Put your own lazer on it, hold ground until a friendly gallente or caldari ewar boat can come and stop him locking the structure = reset his timer and get you another 2 minutes closer to bedtime.
Stalemate over once someone with some sense arrives from either side...and it forces a fight or retreat from your opponent on that structure.
in fact, just fly a damn kitsune to 0, EWAR the inty, use one of your highslots for a link. Game over inty, come fight or f-off :) |
|
Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:09:14 -
[971] - Quote
McDarila wrote:One question did you think this through at all...
What null sec power block would be willing to field 1000 interceptors(crusers, size does not matter) with a 20 million isk mod in any time zone. And go reinforce an entire region for the luls, in just a few hours.
Directed at the NPC null sec residents where do you think the power blocks would move to if even I see this going on. Region on farm from NPC null hope you like you new 4 to 10 thousand not blue residents.
I really hope I'm misreading your post. I think I just read a CFC member wondering who would troll for the luls using massed numbers in cheap ships. |
Buzzsaw Blade
Windrammers Black Legion.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:09:55 -
[972] - Quote
CCP this is some great stuff you guys have going here. Please don't cave to the big power blocks, I can only speculate why they have the need to hold such vast areas of space or what happens to all the isk that they make from their renal empires, however it is clear that it has nothing to do with content creation.
The only thing I can think of that could be a potential problem is cloaky AFK camping, this can be easily fixed by adding a cycle timer to the module, forcing the cloaked player to reactivate the cloak every x amount of time, and if they are AFK it gives the inhabitants of that system a fighting chance to scan down the camper and destroy his ship. Right now cloaky campers have no risk versus a lot of reward of griefing the inhabitants of the system being camped which is not what EVE is about as it is a game of RISK versus REWARD.
That's my 2 cents and you don't have to like it. |
Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:10:49 -
[973] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Talbrys Narentyr wrote:Edit: And for those who keep saying "well you can stop their progress by putting your own sov lazor on it" are ********. Then it just becomes a battle of who is willing to stay logged on longer. The only way this could possibly work is if it was a cruiser size and above. If it can be put on an inty it's the end of sov warfare and the beginning of sov trolling.
Put your own lazer on it, hold ground until a friendly gallente or caldari ewar boat can come and stop him locking the structure = reset his timer and get you another 2 minutes closer to bedtime or come within range of a fight. Stalemate over once someone with some sense arrives.
Anyone who would bring a single inty for this job is bad and should feel bad. A cloud of 30+ interceptors would all be using their thingies so jamming out a few wouldn't make a difference.
|
Siobhan MacLeary
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Ocularis Inferno
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:11:34 -
[974] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Siobhan MacLeary wrote:Stalker ofeveryone wrote:This thread is saltier than the black sea. I'm loving the tears and rage. It's pretty great, innit? More tears, nullbears! More tears! Fill up my jar! Is YOUR space worth taking?
I live in wormhole space. Come try and take it. :P
GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ - CCP Soundwave
|
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:12:09 -
[975] - Quote
I suspect this is a bit of a soft reset on the part of CCP.
All the objections we have have merit, but I think we need to see this from the larger picture of needing to shake up null from the clutches of monolithic blocs.
Yes, in the long run organization and perseverance will prevail, but the immediate effect of making sov change this laughably easy is that large areas of 0.0 will switch hands, often many times.
It sucks if you have invested a lot of time and effort into the upgrade of your systems, it sucks if you have a large cap fleet and still lose sov to a bunch of tenacious inty pilots, and it sucks that you now find anomaly grinding as a replacement to sov structure grinding. This will appeal to some, and kill the game for others. It's a hell of a gamble, but what with the state of 0.0, something drastic was needed to soft reset the board.
For that at least, we can give CCP kudos. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1544
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:12:15 -
[976] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Talbrys Narentyr wrote:All they're doing is making it even more aids to take a system, and practically impossible to do anything outside of your own TZ.
All you need is a cloud of interceptors with the t2 (250km range one) loaded up with sebos and a mwd and orbit far enough away so you can't smartbomb the blob and keep traversal up. Get a few fleets of these (only need 30 or so duders in each), load in some benny hill music and glhf.
It's not so much you can't kill the interceptors, as much as killing a single fleet of 30 interceptors before 10-40 minutes is a pain in the ****. Now look at killing 10 fleets of them reinforcing all your **** in a region and this mechanic is insanely annoying and most of the targets will get reinforced anyway.
This strategy also favors the larger alliances in that the smaller ones won't be able to chase down the masses of intys the larger ones can throw at a region so I don't get why so many of these small alliances are looking forward to this thinking they will be able to hold space.
From the other devblog" We are well aware that Nullsec empires have mastered the strategy of weaponizing their opponentGÇÖs boredom" so now we'll give you a way to weaponize your opponent's frustration. This will lead to quicker burn out than blueballing. Did ANYONE read the part of the blog where they said you can prevent a takeover of your structure with a friendly Entosis link?! please people, read first, think second, and post last.
Yup, but it seems that the idea of living in the system and actually launching a ship is repugnant to some........
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:12:19 -
[977] - Quote
Buzzsaw Blade wrote:CCP this is some great stuff you guys have going here. Please don't cave to the big power blocks, I can only speculate why they have the need to hold such vast areas of space or what happens to all the isk that they make from their renal empires, however it is clear that it has nothing to do with content creation.
The only thing I can think of that could be a potential problem is cloaky AFK camping, this can be easily fixed by adding a cycle timer to the module, forcing the cloaked player to reactivate the cloak every x amount of time, and if they are AFK it gives the inhabitants of that system a fighting chance to scan down the camper and destroy his ship. Right now cloaky campers have no risk versus a lot of reward of griefing the inhabitants of the system being camped which is not what EVE is about as it is a game of RISK versus REWARD.
That's my 2 cents and you don't have to like it.
Not sure if you're being serious but we don't necessarily want to hold vast quantities of space. We just want sov wars to be fun and meaningful.
|
ZombieKillerKatie
Windrammers Black Legion.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:13:28 -
[978] - Quote
Amazing Job CCP., these changes look awesome. Please don't cave!! |
Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:13:58 -
[979] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Sigras wrote:Talbrys Narentyr wrote:All they're doing is making it even more aids to take a system, and practically impossible to do anything outside of your own TZ.
All you need is a cloud of interceptors with the t2 (250km range one) loaded up with sebos and a mwd and orbit far enough away so you can't smartbomb the blob and keep traversal up. Get a few fleets of these (only need 30 or so duders in each), load in some benny hill music and glhf.
It's not so much you can't kill the interceptors, as much as killing a single fleet of 30 interceptors before 10-40 minutes is a pain in the ****. Now look at killing 10 fleets of them reinforcing all your **** in a region and this mechanic is insanely annoying and most of the targets will get reinforced anyway.
This strategy also favors the larger alliances in that the smaller ones won't be able to chase down the masses of intys the larger ones can throw at a region so I don't get why so many of these small alliances are looking forward to this thinking they will be able to hold space.
From the other devblog" We are well aware that Nullsec empires have mastered the strategy of weaponizing their opponentGÇÖs boredom" so now we'll give you a way to weaponize your opponent's frustration. This will lead to quicker burn out than blueballing. Did ANYONE read the part of the blog where they said you can prevent a takeover of your structure with a friendly Entosis link?! please people, read first, think second, and post last. Yup, but it seems that the idea of living in the system and actually launching a ship is repugnant to some........
Much like reading the rest of a thread before posting is to you. |
Jade Greenfire
hirr Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:14:48 -
[980] - Quote
Question: Will the Sov requirement for Capital Production will be changing also ?
|
|
Siobhan MacLeary
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Ocularis Inferno
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:14:54 -
[981] - Quote
Lister Vindaloo wrote:Just to re-iterate, Prime Time is the worst, most divisive idea I've ever seen, the only thing AU TZ players had to offer corps was our ability to act out of TZ, now we have been relegated to logistics and ratting, this is disgraceful.
This entire prime time system is only going to segregate people, there is no way to make a declared 'safe/vulnerable' time work, just add a greater level of randomness to when the timers will end and allow the attacker/defenders to figure out the best way to deal with the timers.
If you go ahead with this prime time nonsense, can AU TZ have jove space so we can have our own little bit of sov space to fight over?
I think AUTZ will still find use from the out-of-TZ shenanigans. If your alliance has enemies mostly online during EU or US, but you have a strong AU presence, then the best way to make you guys useful is to set your alliance's primetime to AU TZ.
This essentially makes AU TZ the defensive line while EU or US is all about dat offensive.
GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ - CCP Soundwave
|
Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:16:02 -
[982] - Quote
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:Lister Vindaloo wrote:Just to re-iterate, Prime Time is the worst, most divisive idea I've ever seen, the only thing AU TZ players had to offer corps was our ability to act out of TZ, now we have been relegated to logistics and ratting, this is disgraceful.
This entire prime time system is only going to segregate people, there is no way to make a declared 'safe/vulnerable' time work, just add a greater level of randomness to when the timers will end and allow the attacker/defenders to figure out the best way to deal with the timers.
If you go ahead with this prime time nonsense, can AU TZ have jove space so we can have our own little bit of sov space to fight over? I think AUTZ will still find use from the out-of-TZ shenanigans. If your alliance has enemies mostly online during EU or US, but you have a strong AU presence, then the best way to make you guys useful is to set your alliance's primetime to AU TZ. This essentially makes AU TZ the defensive line while EU or US is all about dat offensive.
But this is all dependent on who you live by. If you are surrounded by AUTZ the others are obsolete.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1544
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:16:11 -
[983] - Quote
Talbrys Narentyr wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Sigras wrote:Talbrys Narentyr wrote:All they're doing is making it even more aids to take a system, and practically impossible to do anything outside of your own TZ.
All you need is a cloud of interceptors with the t2 (250km range one) loaded up with sebos and a mwd and orbit far enough away so you can't smartbomb the blob and keep traversal up. Get a few fleets of these (only need 30 or so duders in each), load in some benny hill music and glhf.
It's not so much you can't kill the interceptors, as much as killing a single fleet of 30 interceptors before 10-40 minutes is a pain in the ****. Now look at killing 10 fleets of them reinforcing all your **** in a region and this mechanic is insanely annoying and most of the targets will get reinforced anyway.
This strategy also favors the larger alliances in that the smaller ones won't be able to chase down the masses of intys the larger ones can throw at a region so I don't get why so many of these small alliances are looking forward to this thinking they will be able to hold space.
From the other devblog" We are well aware that Nullsec empires have mastered the strategy of weaponizing their opponentGÇÖs boredom" so now we'll give you a way to weaponize your opponent's frustration. This will lead to quicker burn out than blueballing. Did ANYONE read the part of the blog where they said you can prevent a takeover of your structure with a friendly Entosis link?! please people, read first, think second, and post last. Yup, but it seems that the idea of living in the system and actually launching a ship is repugnant to some........ Much like reading the rest of a thread before posting is to you.
Well, I am sure if you ask nicely CCP will reverse all the changes, and remove all the features that ARE DESIGNED TO MAKE PLAYERS LIVE IN THE SYSTEM THEY ARE MEANT TO DEFEND! But who knows?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:18:01 -
[984] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Talbrys Narentyr wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Sigras wrote:Talbrys Narentyr wrote:All they're doing is making it even more aids to take a system, and practically impossible to do anything outside of your own TZ.
All you need is a cloud of interceptors with the t2 (250km range one) loaded up with sebos and a mwd and orbit far enough away so you can't smartbomb the blob and keep traversal up. Get a few fleets of these (only need 30 or so duders in each), load in some benny hill music and glhf.
It's not so much you can't kill the interceptors, as much as killing a single fleet of 30 interceptors before 10-40 minutes is a pain in the ****. Now look at killing 10 fleets of them reinforcing all your **** in a region and this mechanic is insanely annoying and most of the targets will get reinforced anyway.
This strategy also favors the larger alliances in that the smaller ones won't be able to chase down the masses of intys the larger ones can throw at a region so I don't get why so many of these small alliances are looking forward to this thinking they will be able to hold space.
From the other devblog" We are well aware that Nullsec empires have mastered the strategy of weaponizing their opponentGÇÖs boredom" so now we'll give you a way to weaponize your opponent's frustration. This will lead to quicker burn out than blueballing. Did ANYONE read the part of the blog where they said you can prevent a takeover of your structure with a friendly Entosis link?! please people, read first, think second, and post last. Yup, but it seems that the idea of living in the system and actually launching a ship is repugnant to some........ Much like reading the rest of a thread before posting is to you. Well, I am sure if you ask nicely CCP will reverse all the changes, and remove all the features that ARE DESIGNED TO MAKE PLAYERS LIVE IN THE SYSTEM THEY ARE MEANT TO DEFEND! But who knows?
Ok, since reading everything is so hard for you I'll repost this just for you.
Edit: And for those who keep saying "well you can stop their progress by putting your own sov lazor on it" are ********. Then it just becomes a battle of who is willing to stay logged on longer. The only way this could possibly work is if it was a cruiser size and above. If it can be put on an inty it's the end of sov warfare and the beginning of sov trolling.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:19:21 -
[985] - Quote
To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
Second, "If two or more Entosis Links belonging to different GÇ£sidesGÇ¥ are operational on the same structure at the same time, neither will have any effect and all capture will be paused. This remains true even if one side has more Links operational on the structure than the other side." Did you actually read the ting? Interceptors can't put out the DPS to hold a field. That isn't changing.
Third, to those saying that 1000 interceptors can just win mode forever. Yes. No ****. If you can't field 300 Caracals to spread around the capture Points while they spread their Interceptors the same way then you lose. Surprise surprise there are still advantages to having more people. AKA: Working as intended.
2. "T1 frigate gangs will just reinforce entire regions! Oh no!"
First, there is a warning built in to alert alliances when a Link has started to reinforce one of their structures.
Second, working as ******* intended. If you are so far out of the way from the space that some T1 frigate is reinforcing that you can't flash form a ceptor gang to kill it AND you don't have anyone actyally living in the area then you don't need it and are going to lose it. "Undefended space is easily taken space." Herp derp.
3. "Capitals are dead! Long live capitals!"
First, nothing about this SOV system prevents situations from escalating. For example, your TFI fleets are just moving about the constellation steamrolling the Moas of your enemy. Stuff and things happen and two of the TFI fleets get caught on a gate in bubbles with MJDs on cooldown and the defenders see their advantage and they drop blap dreads to clear out two of the 5 fleets taking their space. Attackers counterdrop supers. Bada-bing bada boom. Supercap slugfest. Relax. (And ignore my obvious lack of caring about how realistic TFIs vs Moas is. Shutup)
Second, all other times that capitals get caught and killed by other capitals ever.
4. "The 'Primetime' Mechanic"
This one is the only one that has some actual merit behind it. There is something to be said for "off" time pilots. So...
My suggested change:
We can keep the proposed 4 hour vulnerability window. Having Alliances have to be most vigilant in their own stated prime time makes sense. BUT the idea that an alliance should be completely invulnerable to SOV attack for the other 20 hours is ridiculous.
Instead, have the other 20 hours work on a sliding scale. 4 hours before and after "primetime," that alliance's structures require Entosis Links to cycle for twice as long as during "primetime." Four hours before and after that, three times as long. Etc. These are numbers off the top of my head and could be thought out more and normalized etc. Either way this makes SOV vulnerable round the clock but MOST vulnerable during primetime and least vulnerable in off times.
The only thing I can't figure out is how to manage when things would come out of reinforce depending on when it was reinforced. Discuss. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
128
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:21:28 -
[986] - Quote
Talbrys Narentyr wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Talbrys Narentyr wrote:Edit: And for those who keep saying "well you can stop their progress by putting your own sov lazor on it" are ********. Then it just becomes a battle of who is willing to stay logged on longer. The only way this could possibly work is if it was a cruiser size and above. If it can be put on an inty it's the end of sov warfare and the beginning of sov trolling.
Put your own lazer on it, hold ground until a friendly gallente or caldari ewar boat can come and stop him locking the structure = reset his timer and get you another 2 minutes closer to bedtime or come within range of a fight. Stalemate over once someone with some sense arrives. Anyone who would bring a single inty for this job is bad and should feel bad. A cloud of 30+ interceptors would all be using their thingies so jamming out a few wouldn't make a difference. Well it's eve, 1 player shouldn't be able to beat 30...
These mythical intys...are they align fit or lock range fit? I mean a 2s align inty probably doesn't have the lockrange to kite at 100+km (haven't EFT'd it, just a hunch) and a fit that can lock out to 100+km probably can't align in 2 seconds...
If they're not able to orbit at 100km+ because of align speed reqs then web or scram range bonused ships will make short work of them. If they're able to orbit at 100km+ then just chuck EWAR on them and then kill them when they try to jump to the next system because they can't align in 2s.
edit: after 4 hours of fun and games you can go back to ratting. |
Buzzsaw Blade
Windrammers Black Legion.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:21:37 -
[987] - Quote
Talbrys Narentyr wrote:Buzzsaw Blade wrote:CCP this is some great stuff you guys have going here. Please don't cave to the big power blocks, I can only speculate why they have the need to hold such vast areas of space or what happens to all the isk that they make from their renal empires, however it is clear that it has nothing to do with content creation.
The only thing I can think of that could be a potential problem is cloaky AFK camping, this can be easily fixed by adding a cycle timer to the module, forcing the cloaked player to reactivate the cloak every x amount of time, and if they are AFK it gives the inhabitants of that system a fighting chance to scan down the camper and destroy his ship. Right now cloaky campers have no risk versus a lot of reward of griefing the inhabitants of the system being camped which is not what EVE is about as it is a game of RISK versus REWARD.
That's my 2 cents and you don't have to like it. Not sure if you're being serious but we don't necessarily want to hold vast quantities of space. We just want sov wars to be fun and meaningful.
You see that's why I added this little disclaimer, just for special little people like you, it says " That's my 2 cents and you don't have to like it"
On a side note, please tell me more about how you're looking out for our best interest and making sov war a lot meaningful, you have ZERO credibility in that statement being a member of the alliance that has the biggest rental empire.
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
146
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:22:04 -
[988] - Quote
Aya Nova wrote:Capqu wrote:buff sov benefits to compensate
+20% mining yield per industry index +20% anomaly cash yield per military index
or some ****
i say this as someone who has never lived in sov and has harassed lots and lots, there needs to be a buff to people living there if there's gonna be such a huge buff to me and mine
i mean why wouldnt you just do lvl 4s and mine in highsec even more than people do already if sov is getting harder to hold Some kind of boost would be good. The income from null mining vs hisec is laughably low. Extra yeld isn't really an answer though as it would increase drag tedium / overflow ore hold. I'd prefer to see new types of ore added that only appear in L5 systems (or scale in commonality in L3-5 systems) which refine into massively larger amounts. (ex. a Super-Duper Trit that yelds 3x as much as regular Trit, but is only present in L5 industry systems.
100% chance for faction spawn on anomaly in military 5 systems with low drop rate to boost isk/hour? hmmm i take it every day |
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:22:23 -
[989] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
If you think anything can engage a ceptor gang, then you don't play the game or have a relevant cognitive disability. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
128
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:28:31 -
[990] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:Zip Slings wrote:To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
If you think anything can engage a ceptor gang, then you don't play the game or have a relevant cognitive disability. If you think an interceptor can lock out to 250km and also have insta warp and also have any kind of combat ability then....
Yeah. |
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1545
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:28:42 -
[991] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:Zip Slings wrote:To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
If you think anything can engage a ceptor gang, then you don't play the game or have a relevant cognitive disability.
Well people will develop new tactics, and the only reason to ban interceptors is to kill bigger ships long before they get anywhere near their target. The whole idea is local defence where people are living. Sure, at rollout there will be much upset and confusion, after that people will learn how to defend their own home, and not relying on papa to race 40 jumps with a big stick. Restricting to larger ships purely is an attempt to keep things the same and defeat the intentions of the designers/developers.
Of course if you think CCP are completely without any intelligence, or have absolutely no idea of what they are doing, keep suggesting it. Maybe they will completly give up their proposals or neuter them into uselessness, because interceptors are like "just mean"
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:29:10 -
[992] - Quote
Buzzsaw Blade wrote:Talbrys Narentyr wrote:Buzzsaw Blade wrote:CCP this is some great stuff you guys have going here. Please don't cave to the big power blocks, I can only speculate why they have the need to hold such vast areas of space or what happens to all the isk that they make from their renal empires, however it is clear that it has nothing to do with content creation.
The only thing I can think of that could be a potential problem is cloaky AFK camping, this can be easily fixed by adding a cycle timer to the module, forcing the cloaked player to reactivate the cloak every x amount of time, and if they are AFK it gives the inhabitants of that system a fighting chance to scan down the camper and destroy his ship. Right now cloaky campers have no risk versus a lot of reward of griefing the inhabitants of the system being camped which is not what EVE is about as it is a game of RISK versus REWARD.
That's my 2 cents and you don't have to like it. Not sure if you're being serious but we don't necessarily want to hold vast quantities of space. We just want sov wars to be fun and meaningful. You see that's why I added this little disclaimer, just for special little people like you, it says " That's my 2 cents and you don't have to like it" On a side note, please tell me more about how you're looking out for our best interest and making sov war a lot meaningful, you have ZERO credibility in that statement being a member of the alliance that has the biggest rental empire.
I don't see how that disclaimer has anything to do with what I posted. Unless you put it there so if anyone disagreed with you you could point out people have different opinions as though it was secret knowledge?
Again, we want sov warefare to be meaningful and fun. Currently renter empires are meaningful, hence why big alliances have them. If you make the space we live in profitable so we don't have to load up on renters we will still be happy.
|
Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:30:17 -
[993] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Gypsien Agittain wrote:Zip Slings wrote:To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
If you think anything can engage a ceptor gang, then you don't play the game or have a relevant cognitive disability. If you think an interceptor can lock out to 250km and also have insta warp and also have any kind of combat ability then.... Yeah.
He literally never said any of those things.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
128
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:34:49 -
[994] - Quote
Talbrys Narentyr wrote:He literally never said any of those things.
Well what was he saying? That a ceptor gang is gonna be able to swarm across a region uncontested at gates, maintain an unbreakable lock on this structure at a kiting range for 10minutes AND be able to force anything else off grid?
Sure they might just flit about start a timer here then run off and start another timer there but they're gonna achieve nothing if there's a local presence to force them to move on or engage. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4209
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:35:36 -
[995] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:Zip Slings wrote:To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
If you think anything can engage a ceptor gang, then you don't play the game or have a relevant cognitive disability.
Intercept gangs have counters, and aren't very good at holding the field They are great for hit and run, but that won't win a sov war.
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:36:09 -
[996] - Quote
Talbrys Narentyr wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Gypsien Agittain wrote:Zip Slings wrote:To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
If you think anything can engage a ceptor gang, then you don't play the game or have a relevant cognitive disability. If you think an interceptor can lock out to 250km and also have insta warp and also have any kind of combat ability then.... Yeah. He literally never said any of those things.
But if he did I'm sure he'd just point to a mobile depot. Sure can't do all at the same time, but can do all... |
Maddaxe Illat
HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:39:02 -
[997] - Quote
so all of eve is now going to me FW? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1365
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:41:24 -
[998] - Quote
Honestly, trying to predict fits before we know the fitting requirements of the entosis module is pretty fruitless. It may very well be that the T2 entosis link has fitting that precludes interceptors, or cap use that precludes interceptors (a bit of a stretch given the 2m cycle time but hey), or some other chicanery.
If it's fittable to interceptors, though, boy howdy that is gonna be fun.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
56
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:42:14 -
[999] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:Zip Slings wrote:To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
If you think anything can engage a ceptor gang, then you don't play the game or have a relevant cognitive disability.
You get in a ceptor and point an asteroid. I'll get in a Caracal or even a ******* Algos and also point that same asteroid. First one that has to warp off or dies is wrong. |
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:44:32 -
[1000] - Quote
Talbrys Narentyr wrote:All they're doing is making it even more aids to take a system, and practically impossible to do anything outside of your own TZ.
All you need is a cloud of interceptors with the t2 (250km range one) loaded up with sebos and a mwd and orbit far enough away so you can't smartbomb the blob and keep traversal up. Get a few fleets of these (only need 30 or so duders in each), load in some benny hill music and glhf.
It's not so much you can't kill the interceptors, as much as killing a single fleet of 30 interceptors before 10-40 minutes is a pain in the ****. Now look at killing 10 fleets of them reinforcing all your **** in a region and this mechanic is insanely annoying and most of the targets will get reinforced anyway.
This strategy also favors the larger alliances in that the smaller ones won't be able to chase down the masses of intys the larger ones can throw at a region so I don't get why so many of these small alliances are looking forward to this thinking they will be able to hold space.
From the other devblog" We are well aware that Nullsec empires have mastered the strategy of weaponizing their opponentGÇÖs boredom" so now we'll give you a way to weaponize your opponent's frustration. This will lead to quicker burn out than blueballing.
Edit: And for those who keep saying "well you can stop their progress by putting your own sov lazor on it" are ********. Then it just becomes a battle of who is willing to stay logged on longer. The only way this could possibly work is if it was a cruiser size and above. If it can be put on an inty it's the end of sov warfare and the beginning of sov trolling.
With T2 E-links on ceptors you're talking 100 Million ISK+ per ship. That is one hell of a bad ISK per EHP ratio... as well as ISK per DPS... Even with the T1 E-link you're basically doubling the price of your ship. Seems to me, that for the E-link to pay off, you would want to put it in a ship worth at least ~150 Mil, so HAC or shiny faction cruiser or whatnot.
Now as the defender, you just have to make sure, that you have a few rock solid brick tanks ready to go, docked up or logged out in alt, in every system (a Drake with RLMs, all tanky mods, and a T1 E-link will cost even less as ONE of the proposed T2 E-link ceptors and keep em busy forever). Now you stop capture/reinforcement counter of the ceptor blob and wait for the dedicated anti ceptor cavalry to arrive and mop up. Ceptors are only so damn hard to catch, cause they dictate range and can warp off insanely fast, once they feel the tide turning. With a 2 min or even 5 min E-link cycle on their back, I would think that crucial "oops, time to go..." advantage is gone.
Now there will most probably emerge some interesting, very mobile fits out there, fits, that could cause a lot of trouble. But I would bet, that all those nifty troublemaker concepts would revolve around faction cruisers, T3 destroyers and T3 cruisers. My bet is, that the T3 dessis will come out the closest to the ceptor rush, that everyone is having so many nightmares about, and all other likely options seems sufficiently expensive, so that not everybody and their mother will make a day to day habit out of them. |
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1547
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:46:11 -
[1001] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Gypsien Agittain wrote:Zip Slings wrote:To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
If you think anything can engage a ceptor gang, then you don't play the game or have a relevant cognitive disability. You get in a ceptor and point an asteroid. I'll get in a Caracal or even a ******* Algos and also point that same asteroid. First one that has to warp off or dies is wrong.
Absolutely right, both have to actually be there, and can't be defeated from far far away, interceptors will be great at turning undefended and unloved systems, and ineffective at taking places where people are active and defending.
But that is what frightens them........
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
captain foivos
State War Academy Caldari State
269
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:48:52 -
[1002] - Quote
Here's the new cheapo sov-taking ship of the future.
Aligns in 1.7s, locks out to ~117km, goes ~4km/s. Good luck stopping a fleet of those from running around and targeting every structure they can find. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1796
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:49:08 -
[1003] - Quote
1. Where is 'use it or lose it'? 2. Why would I actually want sov? 3. I am an AU player so I don't like you any more. 4. How can an alliance grow upward instead of outward?
I like entosis, distributed capture and freeport.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1547
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:51:39 -
[1004] - Quote
And if one does not live in a system, they can turn ownership.
If the system is lived in, not so much. One local prevents capture, for as long as he survives. If one lives in a system, hopefully one would not expect to defend against 100 ships on your own?
You want sov? Defend your home.
That's pretty much the idea...........
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Lister Vindaloo
5 Tons of Flax
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:53:19 -
[1005] - Quote
There is no excuse for being able to use your 'prime time' window to exclude entire time zones from participating in alliance/corporation activities, it is simply a divisive, segregating mechanic that will disillusion entire groups from attempting to participate in sov warfare, it HAS to go, i dont know how to respond to anyone who supports it as it only reduces content rather than increase it |
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:54:07 -
[1006] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Gypsien Agittain wrote:Zip Slings wrote:To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
If you think anything can engage a ceptor gang, then you don't play the game or have a relevant cognitive disability. You get in a ceptor and point an asteroid. I'll get in a Caracal or even a ******* Algos and also point that same asteroid. First one that has to warp off or dies is wrong.
Ayyy...As said, the cognitive issue is real. The ceptor can choose every single engage he gets in, the any-other hull dies or is unable to kill it.
You don't get that I don't disagree with the fact "sov needs a revamp". But from needing supers and titans to get sov to be able to contest a system in a frigate there must be a freakin mid-point.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:54:17 -
[1007] - Quote
I'll see your Ares and raise you a Caracal http://i.imgur.com/LEhErJQ.png
Edit: Make that a T1 Hydraulic Bay Thruster Rig |
captain foivos
State War Academy Caldari State
269
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:54:23 -
[1008] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:And if one does not live in a system, they can turn ownership. If the system is lived in, not so much. That's pretty much the idea...........
Lived in? Who cares? Just fly around in that uncatchable interceptor and activate the magic plot device on every structure until the timer runs out or you get chased off. |
captain foivos
State War Academy Caldari State
269
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:55:09 -
[1009] - Quote
You can't kill what you can't catch, hope that helps. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1547
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:55:57 -
[1010] - Quote
captain foivos wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:And if one does not live in a system, they can turn ownership. If the system is lived in, not so much. That's pretty much the idea........... Lived in? Who cares? Just fly around in that uncatchable interceptor and activate the magic plot device on every structure until the timer runs out or you get chased off.
So You get run off, op success, they deserve their home.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
136
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:56:26 -
[1011] - Quote
Sure they can run around and target every structure they find....but can they then do anything about someone undocking and sitting at zero without having to move into frigate gun range and completely negating their range tank?
+1 btw, I was too lazy to EFT this yet :) |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:56:36 -
[1012] - Quote
Lister Vindaloo wrote:There is no excuse for being able to use your 'prime time' window to exclude entire time zones from participating in alliance/corporation activities, it is simply a divisive, segregating mechanic that will disillusion entire groups from attempting to participate in sov warfare, it HAS to go, i dont know how to respond to anyone who supports it as it only reduces content rather than increase it
Have a look at my post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5547628#post5547628 and let me know what you think |
PerrinBash
Living the Dream
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:56:44 -
[1013] - Quote
I do like the direction of the team but its far from the vision I had. Makes it more complex rather then less. I would suggest the following: 1. 3 types of stations, and a station must be built to have sov in every system. A. MCS- master control station, has all familiar facilities and can have eco and defense upgrades B. ECO- has basic services and can use eco enhancements. C. DEF-has no service but allow enhanced defense. Your other ideas are brilliant and makes null much more interesting and interactive, keep nothing of the current sov mech's ino. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2062
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:57:18 -
[1014] - Quote
Okay here is the idea.
MAKE tech II (tier 3) battleships. I would call them Flag ships.
They are the only ones that can fit the Entosis Link.
Make the Entosis Link a variation of the bastion module. so it gets bonus to hull resist and armor and shield.
Make some lore about how the drifter technology is extremely advanced and it requires a specialised ship to do so.
this mean tech II black abbadon
tech II red hyperion
tech II camo rokh
tech II mael
..................
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:58:26 -
[1015] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Gypsien Agittain wrote:Zip Slings wrote:To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
If you think anything can engage a ceptor gang, then you don't play the game or have a relevant cognitive disability. You get in a ceptor and point an asteroid. I'll get in a Caracal or even a ******* Algos and also point that same asteroid. First one that has to warp off or dies is wrong. Ayyy...As said, the cognitive issue is real. The ceptor can choose every single engage he gets in, the any-other hull dies or is unable to kill it. You don't get that I don't disagree with the fact "sov needs a revamp". But from needing supers and titans to get sov to be able to contest a system in a frigate there must be a freakin mid-point.
So let the Ceptor reinforce the structure? Is he gonna come back two days later and magically win against the defense fleet of Rapid Light Caracals? |
TheMercenaryKing
Ultimatum. The Bastion
356
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:58:31 -
[1016] - Quote
Industrial bonus should be higher than military. while the military bonus would seem more logical as a higher bonus or equal, it would emphasize mining and industrial activity in null sec. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:59:46 -
[1017] - Quote
captain foivos wrote:You can't kill what you can't catch, hope that helps.
So Ceptor can't reinforce and Caracal can't catch. Nothing gets reinforced. gg defenders win |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1548
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:00:47 -
[1018] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Okay here is the idea.
MAKE tech II (tier 3) battleships. I would call them Flag ships.
They are the only ones that can fit the Entosis Link.
Make the Entosis Link a variation of the bastion module. so it gets bonus to hull resist and armor and shield.
Make some lore about how the drifter technology is extremely advanced and it requires a specialised ship to do so.
this mean tech II black abbadon
tech II red hyperion
tech II camo rokh
tech II mael
..................
Sure, and they keep their sov by hiding behind bubbles, and instalock gatecamps thirty jumps away from where you want to take. Nothing changed good game! , CCP are not stupid enough to fall for this, give them SOME respect. Possibly you would like a super jump fatigue temoval module on top?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:01:28 -
[1019] - Quote
Lister Vindaloo wrote:There is no excuse for being able to use your 'prime time' window to exclude entire time zones from participating in alliance/corporation activities, it is simply a divisive, segregating mechanic that will disillusion entire groups from attempting to participate in sov warfare, it HAS to go, i dont know how to respond to anyone who supports it as it only reduces content rather than increase it
That's BS. If you are EUTZ and your alliamce has aa USTZ window, you can still go attack other EUTZ sov. Therefore you are still participating in sov warfare. If you want to take part in defensive sov warfare in your USTZ window then alarm clock for it. Or leave and join an EUTZ alliance. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:02:48 -
[1020] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Lister Vindaloo wrote:There is no excuse for being able to use your 'prime time' window to exclude entire time zones from participating in alliance/corporation activities, it is simply a divisive, segregating mechanic that will disillusion entire groups from attempting to participate in sov warfare, it HAS to go, i dont know how to respond to anyone who supports it as it only reduces content rather than increase it That's BS. If you are EUTZ and your alliamce has aa USTZ window, you can still go attack other EUTZ sov. Therefore you are still participating in sov warfare. If you want to take part in defensive sov warfare in your USTZ window then alarm clock for it. Or leave and join an EUTZ alliance.
Have a look at my post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5547628#post5547628 and let me know what you think |
|
Ben Ishikela
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:04:05 -
[1021] - Quote
uiuiuiuiui, .... took some time too read through all of it. its amazingly easy and provides lots of opportunity to fight. Now i even consider going there.
One question for now (more tomorrow) : What happens, if a ship that has applied the link, dies? is its progress deleted? can its progress be continued by friend? does this friend have to have a secondary link already active to be able to continue? If it is like the timer in FW atm, where the timer stops if nothing is active and can even be continued later in these 4 hours, then +1 for this point.
No more nerfing of percieved Overpowered Content!
It makes a game boring after too many iterations. Instead add new modules or ships that can use tactics and strategies to fight the current Meta.
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
147
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:06:46 -
[1022] - Quote
the misles will never get to this ares, not eaven from cerberus.
Remeber every second this ceptor do another 4 km, so every second you lose another 4 km from the missle.
Missles will run out of fuel before they can get to any of those interceptors.
Sniper naga would be much better for this. Chep max range, will track ceptor on this insane orbit with no problems. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:06:46 -
[1023] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:uiuiuiuiui, .... took some time too read through all of it. its amazingly easy and provides lots of opportunity to fight. Now i even consider going there.
One question for now (more tomorrow) : What happens, if a ship that has applied the link, dies? is its progress deleted? can its progress be continued by friend? does this friend have to have a secondary link already active to be able to continue? If it is like the timer in FW atm, where the timer stops if nothing is active and can even be continued later in these 4 hours, then +1 for this point.
We had the same question. I think it makes sense for any broken link's progress to be saved and either restarted by an ally or undone by an enemy, regardless of why the link was broken. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:07:49 -
[1024] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:the misles will never get to this ares, not eaven from cerberus. Remeber every second this ceptor do another 4 km, so every second you lose another 4 km from the missle. Missles will run out of fuel before they can get to any of those interceptors. Sniper naga would be much better for this. Chep max range, will track ceptor on this insane orbit with no problems.
Works for me :) anything to get people to shut up about this interceptor nonsense and focus on the actual issues with this system. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
137
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:07:54 -
[1025] - Quote
Bit late but here's my counter for 56 of those Ares (assuming you put light neutrons in the two remaining highslots not taken by the link)
http://i.imgur.com/3iy4TtX.jpg
come at me brah
:D |
captain foivos
State War Academy Caldari State
269
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:09:16 -
[1026] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Works for me :) anything to get people to shut up about this interceptor nonsense and focus on the actual issues with this system.
the interceptors are an actual issue with the system |
Roofdog2
Penn Industries
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:10:08 -
[1027] - Quote
captain foivos wrote:You can't kill what you can't catch, hope that helps.
first off, plz bring a 100 of those in my space. its pretty easy to just kill them all without a scratch on my naga. or has noone heard of tracking enhancers on sniper ships? and that nice align time isn't gonne help you since you got a module on which blocks you from warping and has a quite long cicle time.
Only thing i think is going to be a problem is the Ihub. An Ihub cost around 350 mil which isn't that big of a deal but the upgrades in there are. At the moment a fully upgraded Ihub costs around 6.5 bil without taking in consideration that you have to move a lot of the upgrades in by fraigter instead of JF couz of the size. And with the new changes you can blow these things up in around 40 min. Looking at the ease of how you can blow one of these up and how mutch they cost, i think the Ihubs need to be rebalanced. Basicly make them less m3 including the upgrades and make them around the 1 bil total cost. Else it will not be worth it hanging something so easely distroyed up in 0.0 , but without them, its not even worth living anywhere in 0.0
at least, thats my vieuw on it.
|
Barbaydos
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:10:18 -
[1028] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:4. "The 'Primetime' Mechanic" This one is the only one that has some actual merit behind it. There is something to be said for "off" time pilots. So... My suggested change: We can keep the proposed 4 hour vulnerability window. Having Alliances have to be most vigilant in their own stated prime time makes sense. BUT the idea that an alliance should be completely invulnerable to SOV attack for the other 20 hours is ridiculous. Instead, have the other 20 hours work on a sliding scale. 4 hours before and after "primetime," that alliance's structures require Entosis Links to cycle for twice as long as during "primetime." Four hours before and after that, three times as long. Etc. These are numbers off the top of my head and could be thought out more and normalized etc. Either way this makes SOV vulnerable round the clock but MOST vulnerable during primetime and least vulnerable in off times. The only thing I can't figure out is how to manage when things would come out of reinforce depending on when it was reinforced. Discuss.
well if you take it so that it takes 2x or 3x as long to reinforce the structure outside of prime time then you take the multiplier and apply it to the timer window itself and move it up to 2/3 x the original 4 hour window |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:11:44 -
[1029] - Quote
captain foivos wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Works for me :) anything to get people to shut up about this interceptor nonsense and focus on the actual issues with this system. the interceptors are an actual issue with the system
You mean the part where people have to actually defend their space when people start reinforcing things? The part where interceptors can't actually hold a field in a real SOV fight? Where exactly should I fear the interceptor? |
captain foivos
State War Academy Caldari State
269
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:12:15 -
[1030] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:captain foivos wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Works for me :) anything to get people to shut up about this interceptor nonsense and focus on the actual issues with this system. the interceptors are an actual issue with the system You mean the part where people have to actually defend their space when people start reinforcing things? The part where interceptors can't actually hold a field in a real SOV fight? Where exactly should I fear the interceptor?
have you ever been to nullsec
serious question |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30736
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:12:51 -
[1031] - Quote
Is this not a huge buff to solo PVP. Now one dude with halitosis can pick all the fights they want
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:13:40 -
[1032] - Quote
Roofdog2 wrote:captain foivos wrote:You can't kill what you can't catch, hope that helps. first off, plz bring a 100 of those in my space. its pretty easy to just kill them all without a scratch on my naga. or has noone heard of tracking enhancers on sniper ships? and that nice align time isn't gonne help you since you got a module on which blocks you from warping and has a quite long cicle time. Only thing i think is going to be a problem is the Ihub. An Ihub cost around 350 mil which isn't that big of a deal but the upgrades in there are. At the moment a fully upgraded Ihub costs around 6.5 bil without taking in consideration that you have to move a lot of the upgrades in by fraigter instead of JF couz of the size. And with the new changes you can blow these things up in around 40 min. Looking at the ease of how you can blow one of these up and how mutch they cost, i think the Ihubs need to be rebalanced. Basicly make them less m3 including the upgrades and make them around the 1 bil total cost. Else it will not be worth it hanging something so easely distroyed up in 0.0 , but without them, its not even worth living anywhere in 0.0 at least, thats my vieuw on it.
I don't disagree that a lot of your points on IHubs are valid but they cant be blown up in 40 mins. They can be reinforced, but then everyone has a timer to fight over. Same large scale strategic objective with arguably more complexity/difficulty. |
Soleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:15:53 -
[1033] - Quote
You're on the right track, but it's very incomplete.
Suggestion 1)
There should be cruiser-specific objectives, battleship-specific objectives, and capital-specific objectives. These objective would require the use of that specific sized Entosis module.
Command Nodes should be for cruiser entosis Modules. X Nodes should be for battleship Entosis Modules. Stations/Ihubs should be for capitals Entosis Modules.
Reasoning:
All shiptypes should be included in sov. I can't get capital combat anywhere else, but this design kills capital combat by not requiring their use. Using a design practice as shown above will ensure that all players get to participate in their favorite playstyle without causing it t be detrimental to other playstyles.
Suggestion 2)
When a station service is "captured" or "incapped" There should be a 24-hour timer before it can be reactivated.
Reasoning: Consequences. If I can just "repair" a service 5 minutes after a hostile gang incaps it, there really isn't a consequence and it'll just be a carry over of design failures of the dominion system. Consequences like this make sense.
I like a ton of what you've done, but you have to really just go that extra step now.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:16:27 -
[1034] - Quote
captain foivos wrote:Zip Slings wrote:captain foivos wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Works for me :) anything to get people to shut up about this interceptor nonsense and focus on the actual issues with this system. the interceptors are an actual issue with the system You mean the part where people have to actually defend their space when people start reinforcing things? The part where interceptors can't actually hold a field in a real SOV fight? Where exactly should I fear the interceptor? have you ever been to nullsec serious question
A. Yes. I have lived in null my entire EVE career.
B. This change is designed to change how you think about SOV mechanics. Shocker. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30736
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:17:48 -
[1035] - Quote
Dear CCP Fozzie, I suggest making the tosser module a default warpable item in overview like cynos.
Can you also make the tosser module eject pods from their ship? Ship sov contests would be fun.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
677
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:19:11 -
[1036] - Quote
And I counter with this Muninn: 70 dps at 100km against your inty's numbers. Two or three shots and you're dead.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:21:30 -
[1037] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Dear CCP Fozzie, I suggest making the tosser module a default warpable item in overview like cynos.
Can you also make the tosser module eject pods from their ship? Ship sov contests would be fun.
Ha! Tosser module. And like the model T ford.... |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2062
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:22:20 -
[1038] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Okay here is the idea.
MAKE tech II (tier 3) battleships. I would call them Flag ships.
They are the only ones that can fit the Entosis Link.
Make the Entosis Link a variation of the bastion module. so it gets bonus to hull resist and armor and shield.
Make some lore about how the drifter technology is extremely advanced and it requires a specialised ship to do so.
this mean tech II black abbadon
tech II red hyperion
tech II camo rokh
tech II mael
.................. Sure, and they keep their sov by hiding behind bubbles, and instalock gatecamps thirty jumps away from where you want to take. Nothing changed good game! , CCP are not stupid enough to fall for this, give them SOME respect. Possibly you would like a super jump fatigue temoval module on top?
you should be able to defend space you live in... its the space they dont actively live in that should be vulnerable
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Coelomate
Gilliomate Corp
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:26:45 -
[1039] - Quote
Dispersed conflict: People are underestimating how spread out conflict will be - "just" 5 command nodes will only happen if attacking a single station on its second timer. If you reinforce every structure in a constellation you get dozens of command nodes. The strategic choices will be interesting, and conflicts could have mixed results, with attackers picking up a few structures but failing to get others.
Occupancy: More metrics need to be included in defensive bonus calculation. The 3 current indices are just length of time held, rats killed, and ore mined. PI, PVP activity, market activity, and many other activities should get rolled into the system, or else you'll see min/maxing to the indices (which will mean unironic mining ops that will bore people to death).
Supers: The size of your super fleet will now determine the quality of space you can hold, not the quantity of it you can hold. This started to be true in Phoebe, but these changes will really cement it. That's probably healthier for the game, but realistically supers are going to become more valuable than sov, so one wonders how willing people will be to commit them.
Prime time: I like 4 hours of prime time. It's a violent change and will cause huge strife to existing social structures, but that pain will result in an EVE where groups of pilots who actually log on at the same time are playing with (and against!) one another. That shuffle is also likely to see some coalitions fragment (at least initially), because your alliance only needs to beef up a single timezone for defense.
Sov structure placement: I may have missed this in the blog, but what will be require to place a TCU, ihub, or station? If the answer is "nothing" then TCU races after big sov battles and dropping caldari research stations in other people's sov could become a thing...
Armor caps: Just a funny thought, but with no more final armor timers, that's one less reason to focus on an armor/super doctrine.
Love,
~Coelomate
|
Kyonko Nola
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:27:37 -
[1040] - Quote
I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time
KitKatSimKatKo
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
140
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:28:40 -
[1041] - Quote
Kyonko Nola wrote:I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time In which case you just plonk an atron at zero...sigh. |
Robertson Nolen
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:28:47 -
[1042] - Quote
Wait, I just thought of a better system while reading the thread! Instead of inti-wars entosis links, why not add a new class of ship! Call them starbase bashers or something. Their weapons are very powerful against starbases, but only do minimal damage to other ships. When firing they have to anchor (or something) reducing their velocity, preventing warps, and reducing RR received by like 75%. Send a bunch of these ships out and as soon as they begin attacking a sov structure, a warning is sent out to the alliance owner. The alliance comes to defend to station from destruction but oh wait the starbase basher is surrounded by bubbles. Now you need to fight through defenders to reach the starbase basher because its starbase bashing weapons have a range of 300 km (or something).
Prime time would need a bit of a rework, but alliances could split their attacking fleets to cover more systems and spread out defenders
Reduce jump fatigue to give caps a break
Boom, I came up with a slightly better system than CCP in 10 minutes. |
Kalissa
Sacred Templars DARKNESS.
58
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:33:54 -
[1043] - Quote
As far as what I think about the changes it's a pretty mixed bag, my first thoughts after reading the Dev Blog were positive though. Below are a few of my thoughts/ideas.
The Prime Time idea is in theory a nice idea but the idea behind it assumes that the alliance holding the space is predominantly in the same TZ. That's never happened in any alliance I've ever been a part of and certainly not in Darkness. One of the idea's I had off the top of my head on that was to make there be more than 1 timer per day, not for 4 hours each of course but maybe spread them out a bit. (with some minimum time required between each timer) Maybe a 90 minute timer 3 times a day? With a minimum of 3 hours between each? That way you make it much more likely that your own members in different time zones will be around for some of them.
The Entosis module having a range of 250km for the T2? I hope that was a typo and you meant 25km
For any alliance having a few supers it'd be too easy for them to deploy off a structure and just keep firing Remote ECM's on a rotational basis, since the Entosis module only has an effect as the end of the cycle you could make it so no one ever got to an end of a cycle.
I think the idea of the Freeport and the idea that all structures are now separate is a good one, the way structures will spawn throughout the constellation rather than just in the system is also good and that the way of bringing more people will not quicken the capture of a structure is also welcomed. All the stuff on occupational indices also looks okay to me.
I think that just having the messages going out to the alliance executor corp directors/ceo is a poor idea at best, many alliances keep the number of members in executor corps low for a good reason that the less people you have the less likely you are to be hit with a rogue director dropping all your sovereignty, much better to make sure that everyone from the ground up gets the message if a structure is under attack.
Aside from the ECM burst thing I mentioned before, it worries me that Titans/Supers now have no role, no reason for them to be used which I think means a sharp decline in their usage, I personally hope you have plans for them in the future about giving them something back that only they are really suited to do.
On the whole I'm say I'm about 60% pleased. 30% Disappointed and 10% flat out terrified about the changes (the 10% would be the prime time idea ) But as CCP said this is just a first round of discussions, I have no doubt we'll all get to the a compromise in the end that makes no one feel satisfied (the sign of a truly good compromise)
|
Dradis Aulmais
RW Vindicator Connection Phoebe Freeport Republic
710
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:37:16 -
[1044] - Quote
All I heard was the sky is falling
Bunches of hyperbole about a ceptor orbiting while link to the structure. Which prevents the ceptor fromwarping while the mod is active so basically a orbiting duck in a room full of hunters.
I'm cloaked in your thread, stealing your info.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30736
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:38:42 -
[1045] - Quote
Will the module make ships immobile as well, like the other modules it seems to behave like?
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Lister Vindaloo
5 Tons of Flax
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:41:09 -
[1046] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Lister Vindaloo wrote:There is no excuse for being able to use your 'prime time' window to exclude entire time zones from participating in alliance/corporation activities, it is simply a divisive, segregating mechanic that will disillusion entire groups from attempting to participate in sov warfare, it HAS to go, i dont know how to respond to anyone who supports it as it only reduces content rather than increase it Have a look at my post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5547628#post5547628 and let me know what you think
Any mechanic based on TZ's segregates the community, as an AU player, why would i ever bother being involved in Sov if my chances of participating are base don the TZ i live in.
Just increase the randomness involved in setting a timer so it may or may not fall the way the defensive fleet wants, and allow both parties to figure out how best to contest the timer.
The entire concept of 'prime time' affecting ANY in game maechanic is terrible, we already suffer from the much smaller number of pilots active in AU timezone, lets not add anyhting that further isolates us.
I understand you are trying to modify the concept to make it better, but the entire concept is fundamentally flawed
DEATH TO PRIME TIME! |
PerrinBash
Living the Dream
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:41:48 -
[1047] - Quote
I guess I don't understand all your concerns as I'm not active out there atm. I will tell all this: if one controls a solar system you should have a loss at stake. The current system has some risk with sov mods but its really not much different then the old POS system. I purpose to up the stakes with my 3 tier station system. If you want sov, invest a station and prepare to defend. It will end these empty voids of null sec IMO
|
Illindar Tyrannus
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:41:57 -
[1048] - Quote
The prime-time Idea I still think is pretty terrible I am being punished for having friends in other timezone's that want to be apart of the alliance I'm in and I think that is pretty ****.
Also the regional spawns are a cool idea buts whats to keep the defender from just hell camping the entrances into the region and trust me the larger groups can do this pretty much unopposed so this only hurts the small groups trying to get into the Sov Game and punishes those that cant get the numbers for huge hell camps of gates.
The problem I see with asking for feedback is the whole system is build around the prime-time idea so I don't know how you can fix it without scrapping the whole system...the best I have seen is the prime-time only effects when it comes out of reinforce and can be put in any time is good but I still think there should be a bit more then a 4 hour window or its back to pile in for the fight just instead of max dudes here we put max dudes at a couple choke points and a few dudes to hit the sov buttons.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
141
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:42:03 -
[1049] - Quote
Dradis Aulmais wrote:All I heard was the sky is falling
Bunches of hyperbole about a ceptor orbiting while link to the structure. Which prevents the ceptor fromwarping while the mod is active so basically a orbiting duck in a room full of hunters. Or an empty room that's got dust covers on all the furniture and which the owners had forgotten all about since Timmy had that accident. |
Paula C Deen
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:42:29 -
[1050] - Quote
The alliance-wide prime time mechanic is the worst idea I've ever seen. Widening the window does not fix it either as that would become self defeating.
This does not encourage small gang sov warfare at all if you really think about it. If you have to control all these control points in a whole constellation, then the system will result in a baseline minimum number of pilots spread across the constellation to defend/attack effectively. Again, the big alliances with most players will prevail. 1000 man fleet, 200 in each system, winning the "tug of war" by beating the other side who only have a 300 man fleet with 60 in each system. Congrats, you have split the big fight into potentially smaller parallel fights, but the end result will still be the same (1000 beats 300). Also I'm pretty sure TIDI still affects neighbouring systems, so I don't really see how the load will be reduced.
That being said, I'm seeing no detail around how this "tug of war" mechanic exactly works. Is it points based? or time based? What points/time is the limit? It's the major fundamental component to the whole sov system! How about some clarity please?
All of the components in this new system heavily rely on each other in order for it to work as a whole. It has some gargantuan flaws/lack of clarity (obviously it hasn't been fully thought out) that need to work properly, all it takes is one of these pieces to not work properly, and you wind up with a completely crap sov system.
This all basically sounds like a half-assed job... keeping the old indexes etc but essentially try to introduce a faction war style system to nullsec. Station services vulnerable at all times? So every morning I wake up in my TZ specific alliance in my TZ specific system (thanks to the prime time mechanic) and just to refit my ships in my own station I'll need to spend 10 mins recapturing the fitting service that some solo troll disabled during the night without contest. Great, just what I wanted, another daily chore to worry about.
Let's not mention dreads/supers/titans which will be pretty much useless after this...
Far too many plot holes in this... this all needs going back to the drawing board in my opinion. But A+ for effort. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
678
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:42:45 -
[1051] - Quote
Kyonko Nola wrote:I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time
In which case an atron (to halt the inty's progress) and a few HACs will have a shooting gallery. I sincerely encourage WAFFLES to try that 100 inties thing.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30736
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:45:57 -
[1052] - Quote
So the best way to take sov is by constellation-wide deployments. heh.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Jon Dekker
Dekker Corporation
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:00:31 -
[1053] - Quote
I've never been actively involved with sov-holding alliance gameplay myself, but it seems to me that everyone who actively takes part currently has mastered the system of, as so eloquently stated by CCP Fozzie, effectively "weaponized boredom". It's not surprising that those currently active in sov warfare will probably not like any changes made, just like the jump drive changes.
For myself, this looks like fun gameplay.
I am a bit disappointed by the UI, I think the Creative team should take another crack at that. To me it doesn't really conform to the new "modernized" UI. |
tatavath
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:00:58 -
[1054] - Quote
what if rather then locked vulnerability times you just have a 23(or N where N is less or more then 24 hours) hour cycle so over the course of a few days it shifts to a new time. This gives time to respond and gives value to all time zones. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:01:46 -
[1055] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:So the best way to take sov is by constellation-wide deployments. heh. I thought one of the main premises was allowing sov to be local to a system?
FC was the old hotness, now there will be a CC or Constellation Coordinator?
Anyone would think they are trying to boost large alliance groups like goons |
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4783
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:02:13 -
[1056] - Quote
OK, a few more thoughts.
Firstly I need to think more about the primetime issue but my gut thought is that it will lead to a lot of stalemates, where a weak-but-viable AU TZ alliance has one constellation, a stronger EU TZ alliance has the adjacent two, and neither can dislodge the other. Stalemates could lead to boredom, or could lead to a system of (fun) permanent war. Existing coalitions will probably splinter into groups based upon their timezone and this is probably bad.
Secondly, the defensive bonuses for ratting and mining (but not for exploration?) need to be more interchangable. The idea of the overhaul is that you want people using space. If you own one system, mining in it, ratting in it, running non-combat exploration sites in it and killing hostile players in both your system and adjacent systems should all contribute to your defensive bonuses and should all be interchangeable.
To a mining-oriented nullsec sov holder, the present system says "We don't care that you'd rather be mining. You need to drop that and rat." This isn't good. Let players choose *how* they use their space and reward them for using it, don't tell them they have to focus on 50% ratting 50% mining.
Thirdly, if the present system goes ahead unchanged, there will be a massive flood of additional nullsec mining. A small change here would be a good thing as more mining fleets means more fleets to ambush, and more fighting over null belts means more fights that might escalate. But the economic effect will be a drastic devaluation of null minerals, and the game impact will be a dramatic increase in the number of bots mining in null. I will go as far as to predict that these changes will lead to a 20% (or larger) increase in the number of trial accounts running mining bots in ventures in nullsec, and nullsec wars will be won (in part) by having enough of these bots running to keep your defensive indexes maxxed out.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30737
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:03:27 -
[1057] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Rain6637 wrote:So the best way to take sov is by constellation-wide deployments. heh. I thought one of the main premises was allowing sov to be local to a system?
FC was the old hotness, now there will be a CC or Constellation Coordinator? Anyone would think they are trying to boost large alliance groups like goons Most of the discussion assumes there will be conflict at all. I'm pretty sure there will be NEPs or Non Entosis Pacts.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Ser Berus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:03:42 -
[1058] - Quote
Wow. Lotta words ITT.
I'm just going to say that I like, generally, the direction you're headed with this. That being said, as an actual "thing you want to implement" that this is fairly poorly thought out and shows that you're not taking proper advantage of the advice that the CSM has no doubt been trying to give you. I can see why Sion was so pissed off at you a couple months back.
To offer some constructive criticism in no particular order:
- The prime time thing really needs to be completely rethought. For details see, well, pretty much every other post in the entire thread, but I'll just say about it that one of the biggest appeals about eve's single-shard nature is that anyone, anywhere in the world can exert an impact on everyone else in the universe. That's something that makes eve truly unique, and balkanizing the eve universe by time zone in any way is a really, really bad plan.
- Something that needs to be emphasized is that this is really not going to work without some major rework of the sov indices at the same time. I know you said you're planning on iterating on that, but you need to pay more attention to it than you currently appear to be. As it stands, there are exactly two measurements for "using your space": Ratting, and Mining. This of course ignores the countless other ways that those of us who live in null use our space.
For military, you're ignoring things such as PVP, home defense fleets, erecting tower defenses, PVP, oh, and did I mention PVP? PVP kills should really have a much greater impact on the military index than ratting.
For industry, having the only measurement be mining is even more ludicrous, as it ignores things like manufacturing items in stations, manufacturing in towers, supercap construction, keeping towers fueled and online, shipping things, importing from hisec, exporting to hisec, running jump freighter services, buying and selling on the market, buying and selling on contracts or planetary interaction. You do any of those things? Sorry, you're not contributing. In the meantime, mining in nullsec is just about nonexistent, which I feel constrained to point out is something you've promised to fix in the past, and then proceeded to halfass. Please take a look at how many systems in nullsec actually have a high industry index, and reconsider how you're measuring "industrial activity".
If we have to maintain the industry index solely through mining, that sounds about as fun as being the recipient of an hour long ball-kicking session.
- The biggest thing pissing everyone off is how you've been putting the cart before the horse where nullsec changes are concerned. For several years we've been hearing promises about how the null changes are going to incentivize living in your own space, but the only incentives that appear to be left here are a 25% fuel bonus on towers (that will probably go away as soon as you iterate on POS), the ability to build progressively more useless supercaps, and the ability to have a spinning bee in the middle of the system.
Really, woop dee ******* doo.
You still haven't given any indications that you understand that sov needs to be valuable, both for the line member (so that they want to live there), and for the alliance (so that they can provide things like ship reimbursements and newbee handouts). To be clear, I'm not talking about some philosophical notion of "value" here; its all about the cold, hard isk. There is a reason that alliances are increasingly resorting to renting; there are very few ways left to actually make significant amounts of isk on an alliance level.
- The various sov upgrades need to be easier to handle. Making them physically smaller (JF / BR size) has been one suggestion; making them constructible locally would be another way to handle this. I'd really recommend talking to someone who actually does nullsec logistics on a regular basis (i.e., things like fueling towers, handling sov upgrades and the like). Please have one of the CFC members of the CSM put you in touch with someone in GSOL; I'm sure any of them would be happy to give you autistic levels of detail on how much moving alliance-level things around null currently sucks.
- Add to the above: there need to be more ways to upgrade sov, that actually make a difference to people living there (and that hurt more when someone tries to knock over the sand castle)
- Eliminating the current tons o' sov structures meta is good, but what about going a step further and wrapping the TCU into the IHub? There's no particular reason why you'd need a separate TCU other than for the fuel bonus and displaying a spinning bee to everyone, and both functions could be included in a revamped ihub.
|
Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:04:36 -
[1059] - Quote
Tons of griefing is what I see come June if this is not significantly improved.
Please start by making those Entosis modules cost upwards of 100m for T1, 250m+ for T2, so they cannot be used for throwaway griefing. Cost and fitting requirements should be much stronger than what is on the table so that they aren't used to just annoy the **** out of locals for funsies. Those things are set to be a sure way to force a fight, so make them cost accordingly, so that the defenders get some sense of achievement for blapping the pesky troll. The attacker is guaranteed to get some pvp, make him risk something beyond a sub-50m interceptor.
Secondly, afk cloaking. It can nuke mil/indy indexes anywhere but the most populated staging systems over a course of a week, and it's about to become a totally legit sov warfare weapon; "weaponized boredom", like you call it. I hope there are either changes to stealth coming, or the indexes will get reworked a bit so they either don't decay as fast or include things other than ratting.
Thirdly, what do we get from sov? 25% discount on pos fuel sounds kinda lame in a world where systems need to be defended for 4 hours straight every single day. If you're going to make sov harder to keep, make it worth the effort. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2099
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:06:21 -
[1060] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Proton Stars wrote:Rain6637 wrote:So the best way to take sov is by constellation-wide deployments. heh. I thought one of the main premises was allowing sov to be local to a system?
FC was the old hotness, now there will be a CC or Constellation Coordinator? Anyone would think they are trying to boost large alliance groups like goons Most of the discussion assumes there will be conflict at all. I'm pretty sure there will be NEPs or Non Entosis Pacts. That's why I'm worried about neutral Alts. |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30737
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:07:51 -
[1061] - Quote
A workaround for prime time would be a reorganization of coalitions into constellation-sized alliances. You would also have to make sure these constellation alliances have enough ship-power to ensure there will be enough entosis modules during fights.
Just don't forget the talk about reorganization as a workaround to new sov mechanics.
Play this out a year or two down the road and you'll have what, one station per constellation stocked with response ships and jump clones... and each character can potentially maintain response clones in ten constellations? Entosis skill has a nice synergy with this jump clone response strategy.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Lienzo
Amanuensis
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:11:44 -
[1062] - Quote
Bottom-up approaches don't produce reasons for conflict. Hunter-gatherer societies don't go to war, not even cannibalistic ones.
Only unbridled greed, the demands of investments and dependency driven vassalage produce wars.
We wanted you to add content and objectives for small gangs, not replace everything with this rubber-stamp sov mining. The idea of spawning constellation wide anomalies is a great idea, but it should be an addition to what we have, and not a wholesale replacement. It would be a great replacement for TCU timers.
If such a system that allowed for small gang harassment could damage sov indices over time, thereby threatening grand industrial projects, that would be worthwhile. It would give small gang FCs a clear set of focal points. It would also help the grand campaigns lumber on and marshal resources over the usual weeks instead of just sweeping the field in days.
You need to make sov worth having and keeping, and capital ships need to have a role in that. How about only allow hull repairs in capital shipyards, increase their hull hp by a goodly margin, and allow 1% of all damage to bleed through? How about making half of all capital ship build requirements and ammo come from r8/16 moons?
The whole point of having big hp walls is that you can differentiate which content is for which size fleet and the investment each represents. The key here is to have different size walls, rather than just big walls on everything.
Immunity can always be layered behind walls if the periphery is always made up of short walls, and the tall walls are dependent upon the existence and maintenance of the short walls. |
Thirdsin
Intergalactic Fight Club Gentlemen's.Club
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:20:25 -
[1063] - Quote
Here we go again...
Ok, I think I've made this folly slightly better guys: My biggest problem with the SOV upheaval is that there needs to be a larger barrier to starting this capture process, an initial grind of the structure being attacked should be required (TCU, iHub, station etc) equivalent to a small POS (play with the HP level, but it should require a COMBAT fleet and some time securing the grid to become a threat). You've now given more time for the defenders to muster AND more importantly the small group passing through is of little threat to your SOV you've invested so much in. If you want to attack SOV with this mechanic, you best come correct.
Other 2cents
- Echoing statements, far too OP for the attacker to troll and destroy, while providing little for the defender. I don't care to login and play 'sov patrol online' only to prevent small gangs from trolling through.
- I like the idea of making this module Battleship only, maybe throw a bone to BCs and make it BC and up. But CCP PLZ, don't allow this on frigs or t3 dessies or even the damn orthrus for the love of all things sacred....
- SOV to me, should be a place of larger battles, perhaps more frequently, but none the less. SOV shouldn't be this thing won and lost by kiting small gangs with little interest in the battleground they are fighting over. If I wanted that type of fight I'd go pew in lowsex.
- Please stop sidelining caps. The people that fly them are some of the most invested in this damned timesink game of love, with a great many alts to support their love life. That said, there will come a breaking point and other games become a viable time investment if what you've spent so much time trying to obtain is made irrelevant at the benefit of 1mo trial newbros (no offense, <3 me some newbros).
- Why do u hate diverse alliances? The late night Euros and early bird AU's make my (USEAST) Eve best Eve.
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:23:30 -
[1064] - Quote
I have now actively posted in this thread for just under 3 prime times, yet I work a rolling shift pattern so I'll only be effective on my alliances prime time one week in 4. Guess I'll play elite or one of the x series on the other three weeks.... |
Saya Kerrigan
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:24:04 -
[1065] - Quote
Sadly.. I'm still not seeing ANY incentive for sov warfare...
There is NO reason for CFC to go invade NC. & their allies/renters and vise versa.. there's no reason for anyone to actually fight over sov.
Sure there's the reward of OWNING the sov & the moons that come with it but it's just not enough or worth the time I feel.
CCP NEEDS to either give some kinda other rewards or something for actually fighting / taking sov to begin with or find some way to force fights between alliances / coalitions...
I'm just gonna predict right now that even with these new "cool" sov mechanic changes... Nothings going to change. CFC and their allies will sit right where they are and NC n such will sit where they are.
Theres littery no reason for them to fight and unless some new entity is gonna rise up and try to challenge CFC + Allies or NC. + Allies yeah.. nothings changing anytime soon.
The last time anything sov based changed was when Tech moons n such changed.
That's where I stand. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30738
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:24:13 -
[1066] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Proton Stars wrote:Rain6637 wrote:So the best way to take sov is by constellation-wide deployments. heh. I thought one of the main premises was allowing sov to be local to a system?
FC was the old hotness, now there will be a CC or Constellation Coordinator? Anyone would think they are trying to boost large alliance groups like goons Most of the discussion assumes there will be conflict at all. I'm pretty sure there will be NEPs or Non Entosis Pacts. That's why I'm worried about neutral Alts. What happens when an NPC corp character activates an entosis module? Can the station's control still drop?
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:26:38 -
[1067] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Rowells wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Proton Stars wrote:Rain6637 wrote:So the best way to take sov is by constellation-wide deployments. heh. I thought one of the main premises was allowing sov to be local to a system?
FC was the old hotness, now there will be a CC or Constellation Coordinator? Anyone would think they are trying to boost large alliance groups like goons Most of the discussion assumes there will be conflict at all. I'm pretty sure there will be NEPs or Non Entosis Pacts. That's why I'm worried about neutral Alts. What happens when an NPC corp character activates an entosis module? Can the station's control still drop?
A plank bubble explodes and state war academy kill a puppy |
Callic Veratar
671
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:27:27 -
[1068] - Quote
Nice align time. How do you expect to warp when the enosis module disables warping for it's full duration? |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
172
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:29:17 -
[1069] - Quote
how come this SOV Change doesn't even mention the change or supposed changed for moons.. its like he's purposely protecting interest in this area..
and no Im never taking my tinfoil hat off..
wassup wit dat! |
El'Grimm
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:33:23 -
[1070] - Quote
Gonna ramble a bit here...
If any smaller alliance thinks this system will allow them a foothold you are sorely mistaken, yes this system will allow you to harass the larger entities, but nothing more. There are something like fifteen large enough entities in eve that can EASILY drop a few hundred cheap ships on a whole region, so harass maybe, get a sov foothold.. keep dreaming. But sure take sov if you can, as they WILL be wanting to show you how this new system works.
Keeping sov is going to be like a chore with this system, no not fun pvp a damned chore of being on alert during your "prime" time, sitting around waiting for something to chase, think guaranteed gate-camps 4 hours a day reds or no reds.
Sov holders.. no more holidays for you without evacuating to npc stations first, the ratio of fun casual, to must be logged in every bloody day no exceptions is gonna kill player retention imo. This is loosely scheduled for June... odds on the debacle that happens on the 4th July holiday anyone?
40 minute timer... hahahaha iirc there are something like 3000+ player claimed systems, 40 minute timers, definitely not enough to even talk about them. I'm from provi, one of the most densely inhabited and industrialized player sov in all of eve, and I can tell you from our prelim data that our timers are way below 40 minutes as an average.
And talking of indexes, if the attack is serious you think those index's are gonna stay high? Hell no, the amount of tools available for a dedicated attacker with virtually zero risk available that can seriously hinder an index, vastly outweighs a defenders chance to keep that index up (no I didnt say fight them I said index, as thats now the strategic objective)
New system is so much more biased to the attacker, without needing the assets to grind down those hp's, a system can now be engaged by a dirt cheap ship. Sure someone will say ah but one ship can counter another single ship.. Heres my take on that. Already said I'm not talking small entities here, I am talking bloc warfare, so it never will be just one ship, it will be hundreds, possibly thousands. Ok so instead of one cheap ship, say 210 come, so there first strike in cheap ****** ships is to engage 70 systems, ihub/station/TCU in every system, now assuming a say below provi index average.. in 15 minutes EVERY sov structure in 70 systems is now reinforced, all for the isk of a single dread. Simply put WAY to easy, and way way out the league of non bloc players. 15 bloody minutes, for throwaway isk for the blocs. Even if you have fleets on stanby, its not one engagement to defend in this scenario, its 210 spread over an entire region, and oh its gonna be funny hearing about the spam alerts from the sov system alerts during this time :) Someone said that even the t1 e-wand is very expensive at 20m, for a single module, bloc fleet doctrines for serious fleets range from 250m-1b, 20m is nothing in this game for a bloc player. And remember even if assuming both sides have similar numbers, it sounds very dull for the hundreds of attackers who simply arent engaged, but still screw up the defenders sov.
You think my numbers are crazy, on simple past engagement sizes either of the 2 largest blocs could do this form of throwaway attack in 5-6 regions at the same time.. EACH. Still think its a good new system for newbros?
Constructive ideas using this god awful framework I guess...
Gotta increase the value of the e-wand, or make it only usable on something more expensive, if people are there for sov a reasonable amount of isk MUST be spent, if newbros cant afford anything other than t1 cheap crap, then they cant afford even the basics of taking sov anyway, and it would seriously stop the e-wand griefer issue, or the mass bloc attack.
You HAVE to seriously look at the timers issue, both in terms of first strike and following timers, few days away from the game cannot be punished as harshly as it will in this proposed system.
Prime time. I can see the reasoning, ccp clearly wants to break up the coalitions, and force division, isn't that simply a counterproductive goal to you know.. an MMO? As for the 4 hours, also perhaps a change of that vulnerable time related to index? Maybe base 6 hours minus time related to index average maybe? |
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
856
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:39:05 -
[1071] - Quote
Capqu wrote:buff sov benefits to compensate
+20% mining yield per industry index +20% anomaly cash yield per military index
or some ****
i say this as someone who has never lived in sov and has harassed lots and lots, there needs to be a buff to people living there if there's gonna be such a huge buff to me and mine
i mean why wouldnt you just do lvl 4s and mine in highsec even more than people do already if sov is getting harder to hold
If you are doing level 4's and mining in highsec, why would you want to be in a null sec alliance? Why would you even want to play Eve?
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:41:37 -
[1072] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Capqu wrote:buff sov benefits to compensate
+20% mining yield per industry index +20% anomaly cash yield per military index
or some ****
i say this as someone who has never lived in sov and has harassed lots and lots, there needs to be a buff to people living there if there's gonna be such a huge buff to me and mine
i mean why wouldnt you just do lvl 4s and mine in highsec even more than people do already if sov is getting harder to hold If you are doing level 4's and mining in highsec, why would you want to be in a null sec alliance? Why would you even want to play Eve?
So why on gods green earth would you model sov on these two things? I mean Christ on a bike, I keep thinking April 1st has come early |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2099
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:44:22 -
[1073] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Rowells wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Proton Stars wrote:Rain6637 wrote:So the best way to take sov is by constellation-wide deployments. heh. I thought one of the main premises was allowing sov to be local to a system?
FC was the old hotness, now there will be a CC or Constellation Coordinator? Anyone would think they are trying to boost large alliance groups like goons Most of the discussion assumes there will be conflict at all. I'm pretty sure there will be NEPs or Non Entosis Pacts. That's why I'm worried about neutral Alts. What happens when an NPC corp character activates an entosis module? Can the station's control still drop? Idk. If a neut can do the initial interruptions of station services and such I don't have an issue, but if it can run down the timer at all on the capture/destroy phase, it might be undesirable. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2099
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:45:21 -
[1074] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:how come this SOV Change doesn't even mention the change or supposed changed for moons.. its like he's purposely protecting interest in this area..
and no Im never taking my tinfoil hat off..
wassup wit dat! Moon changes? |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
137
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:45:54 -
[1075] - Quote
will be fleets of T3 destroyers orbiting at 180km doing 15km/s+ cap stable nuking station services etc
|
Tara Read
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
820
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:46:50 -
[1076] - Quote
Looking at these changes for me personally gives me hope for a truly interactive and diverse Null Sec that many players have longed for for years. The Sovereignty issues that now plague many entities and players while isolating and incubating a select few, NEED to be changed for this game to have any potential future.
Those of us who have been around remember the fabled Great War, BOB, such clashes and of a bright eyed new underdog whom none of us thought would grow and prosper into what the CFC is today. Verily, I don't think anyone during these times could have seen nor imagined the power such Coalitions wield as they do today.
Supercapital Proliferation has been a mainstay of Power Bloc policy for years, mostly as a deterrent and mostly as a means of quickly retaking and regrinding structures should the need arise. We saw such policies come into play Pre Phoebe where the power projection of the Coalitions were limitless.
Phoebe was the first real step to shake up the stagnation of Eve. It's ripples are still being felt to this day with many powers having to carefully plan where as smaller groups including those in Low Sec no longer feel the sky is truly falling. And yet as much as this game has progressed I personally feel if Eve itself is to survive even another five years DRASTIC changes need to be made.
CCP (bless their bold hearts) have given many of the most vocal and adamant here the proverbial middle finger seeing beyond the long noses of a few Elite while the rest of this sandbox suffers. And suffer it shall! Unless CCP continues to undertake and develop bold new ideas to shake the very core of even the most powerful entities in New Eden.
Today marks another significant step toward changing and reinvigorating a game over a decade old. And for that I feel we ALL should be thankful. The fact that CCP have worked and continued to develop and bring forth radical changes to keep this game and it's players on it's toes is something worthy of merit and something we ALL should acknowledge regardless of our stances on SOV changes or the finite details regarding it.
As far as the changes proposed, removing structure grinds, neutering the Proliferation fleets of the Coalitions, while making entire regions vulnerable through interaction are bold and needed steps. To bypass the issues regarding the grind and to bring forth even these rough ideas is what is exactly needed. New blood. new ideas. New strategies.
For the naysayers, for those who cry what is SOV good for? I think CCP's keeping such things closer to their chest than we think. There are drastic new things happening with lore, Drifters, Stargates, etc. Be patient! Give CCP a chance to wow us and to enact bold changes to reinvigorate a tired and dried husk that is Null Sec.
There's a reason why a majority of us in Low Sec live here. Because simply without joining a coalition, without being part of the "hive" so to speak the chances of one striking out on their own as a smaller entity and actually holding Sov is 0% so long as you have no ties to bigger and more powerful entities.
Even worse, the grinds, the ability for Coalitions to regain SOV via Supercaps and grinding back structures leaves it dull and an impossibility for those smaller groups even entertaining the idea of striking out to Null for their own sake. Which leads me to another tangent:
Supers. Supers and Titans NEED defined roles. Supers themselves have many strengths but limited uses especially in a post era when these changes take place. I personally hope that CCP revamps and reworks Titans and Supers to give them truly unique strengths, and very unique weaknesses for those of us whom dare to fly such ships into combat.
Post Phoebe Supers and Titans have limited uses even now and without retooling these ships will find even less use except as Eve's own ICBM's for Coalitions to defend key systems. I'm assuming (and guessing) that CCP will release Super changes in tandem with these SOV changes.
And for those whom have cried for the last 54 pages. I DARE you to sit here and say the current SOV mechanics are fine the way they are. They aren't. They haven't been for years. Keep an open mind or suffer even more stagnation at the hands of complainers and those at the top who want no change or campaign for the CSM to rollback Phoebe changes so their own powerful friends can once again dominate New Eden with little to no consequence.
Do it CCP. No fear.
Visit my blog for all the latest in jeers and tears as well as news at http://hoistthecolors.org
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2099
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:49:29 -
[1077] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:will be fleets of T3 destroyers orbiting at 180km doing 15km/s+ cap stable nuking station services etc
And all you need is one ship with your own link to stop them. Any additional ships will be for picking off the T3s |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:52:46 -
[1078] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Ncc 1709 wrote:will be fleets of T3 destroyers orbiting at 180km doing 15km/s+ cap stable nuking station services etc
And all you need is one ship with your own link to stop them. Any additional ships will be for picking off the T3s
Also, please show us the T3 fit and I'll show you the sniper ship that erases it |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2099
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:53:11 -
[1079] - Quote
Quote:The Entosis Link module represents the central interaction mechanic of the new Sovereignty system (among its other uses) i wonder what that bolder part means... |
Proton Stars
OREfull
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:56:37 -
[1080] - Quote
Proberbly farms Jove ships. |
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:59:47 -
[1081] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Ncc 1709 wrote:will be fleets of T3 destroyers orbiting at 180km doing 15km/s+ cap stable nuking station services etc
And all you need is one ship with your own link to stop them. Any additional ships will be for picking off the T3s Shhh...
Don't ruin his narrative. |
Soleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:11:12 -
[1082] - Quote
Following up on earlier suggestions, I think that the number of players it should take to activate timers should increase from 2 to 5.
Group gameplay is important to eve, and sov in particular should require groups of players to complete objective. By making it so someone with their alt can just go about completing objectives willy nilly lessens the need for grouping and increases cat and mouse greifing.
I think 5 is a reasonable number to require.
I would also consider making it to where the more entosis modules you put on an objective the faster it completes, but with a cap of lets say 10 so that further encourages grouping, without making it to where the bigger blob you bring the better your chances. |
Kyonko Nola
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:14:26 -
[1083] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kyonko Nola wrote:I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time In which case an atron (to halt the inty's progress) and a few HACs will have a shooting gallery. I sincerely encourage WAFFLES to try that 100 inties thing.
What I am concerned is that with other things happening around the grid, a gang of inties with the module running all the time orbiting 250 km will be hard for the defenders to actually do something about them. Best case, it would be annoying. There are a lot of factors involved and I think that it is extremely disadvantageous for the defenders.
But what do I know about SOV. And I do not speak for my corporation, just inputting my opinion for ccp to consider.
Also Waffles.
KitKatSimKatKo
|
S3ND3TH
Czerka. Out Of The Void
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:20:14 -
[1084] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Tykonderoga wrote:The prime time idea is garbage. The module to reinforce structures will be abused by ceptor pilots with pirate implants or a bazzillion people in ceptors. Think CCP! I know that no one in the company actually plays the game anymore, but think! Why is it that people think a fleet of ceptors is uncounterable?
i think it has more to do with mobility. you can't just blockade the gates with bubbles. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
314
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:27:11 -
[1085] - Quote
There's a lot here.. and I'm not sure how well this change will work out, but it's worth a try.
Now there are some things I'd like to suggest.
First is to bring activity into the picture. And I'd like to tie it in to the Primetime thing. I both like and dislike the primetime feature. It makes sure that you can defend your sov when you are strongest, but you've just made it so having multi-tz alliances isn't gonna be much fun for at least half of them.
So, here's my idea. You have your 4hr Window. This window will apply to your MOST ACTIVE system. In terms of PvE. In terms of Mining. Industry. No matter what happens that system is only open in that timeframe. Now you have your LEAST active system. That system has a *chance* of being vulnerable +/- 12hrs on either end. Lets say the chance is 25%? Now the rest of the systems go on the bell curve, and their activity affects what the chance of it hitting is, and their 'rank' affects the chance of it being vulnerable in that extra time. So your middle or the range system could end up being +/-3hrs with a 12% chance of it being vulnerable in those additional 6 (3+3)hrs.
This means your core systems are the safest systems. They will virtually always be during your prime time. But those forgotten systems. Those systems you are rarely in, have a much greater chance of hitting outside your prime time, Or in turn, more squarely in the prime time of another Alliance.
Two. Incursions. Have them attack SOV. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. They should go after SOV, POS's, etc. Unlike the Empires where the Sansha know they have no chance to Hold the ground, they should try in Null. If ignored when when the Incursion Withdraws, there should be No POS's left, and sov and stations should be transferred to the Sansha, along with local rats and anoms.. You'd need to retake it same way as any other alliance.
Three. Give Outposts, iHubs, etc POS Guns. So they can blap that little frig that is going to turn off your services just for lol's. It's kinda silly that a large POS can have defaces but an Outpost can't?
Anyway.. just my ideas. I honestly have no idea how this is going to play out.,. I can see it turning into another FW Farce of everyone flying frigs cause why not.. Or I can see this driving some real conflict.. I donno. It's a tossup. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
420
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:28:59 -
[1086] - Quote
1) Remove r64s from moons 2) put those in moving entities like incursions 3) provide more scaling benefits to owning sov |
S3ND3TH
Czerka. Out Of The Void
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:29:51 -
[1087] - Quote
i think we should go back to having to smash 20-100 pos's in an small area to take sov. i enjoyed the hours and hours of mind numbing structure bashing.
remember, it can always be worse. a lot of criticism on this thread, but not a lot of solutions offered. i think this change will actually be good. i know the community will find a way to twist it in a way the devs did not foresee or intend, but anything that makes smaller fights happen more often, bigger fights happen less, removes a lot of structure bashing, helps smaller groups get out to null without being overwhelmed, and makes fielding 2 carriers in a fight not turn into fielding 500 carriers in a fight, are all good things. the biggest things to remember are that there is no change that can't be undone and get on the test server to check these things out. your opinion actually matters there and you have the power to give good ideas on there. |
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:29:59 -
[1088] - Quote
Add instalock ability to all the ships, restore dps, range and all the nerfed things. THEN it will be a great change, and we will have a really nice thing. Errrr.... this would not work as intended. CCP, how about making the defenders weapons shoot backwards? At least there won't be any imbecile fails of the attackers and we all would see a lot of amazing videos of hordes of small cheap bullshit killing everyting and being pro. Would be a marketing hit also. "Doable by 2 month old chars" would smash every competition. |
Joshua Blue
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:30:07 -
[1089] - Quote
N+1 is no worse under the changes than it is now. N+1 will always be possible, and in a sense I agree with it - the better organised and committed alliance should always win.
Dominion moved sov warfare substantially in favour of the defender. This is moving it back towards the attacker, which is sorely needed in order to free up space. It'll seem unfair and unbalanced, simply because of what we're used to currently. Remember that all it it takes to stop a sov attack is one Entosis link from one defending alliance member. With 250Km range, that's actually pretty damn easy.
For a well defended and occupied system you will have 40 mins to stop an attack. And to stop an attack all you need is ... Effectively any vulnerable period is reduced by 40 mins. You only have to intermittently stop the attack during a 40 min cycle and it resets.
The Prime Time zone sucks - it forces Alliances to be single TZ, and reduces vulnerability to 4 hours out of 24. It should change it so that your sov structures are vulnerable for three periods of between 3 and 6 hours, for a 12 hour total in any 24 hour period.
The capture mechanic of multiple command nodes in multiple systems in the constellation is awesome.
You should only be able to put up a POS if you have a TCU in system. That should be incentive to hold Sov - currently there appears to be none.
Rental empires are dead. It was bound to happen, and CCP have been flagging it for a while. RIP. Time to move on.
Supers are no longer required for sov bashing. This sucks for us, but is good for the game as a whole. Let's see what they come up with for supers in future before crying too much.
Shoot me. I like the changes. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
314
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:30:13 -
[1090] - Quote
Oh and one other thing since people are talking Interceptors and such with these things.
Make the module work like Bastion Mode. Can't move, can't get reps, but get bonuses to your local tank. |
|
1nverted
What Could Go Wrong Overload Everything
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:31:11 -
[1091] - Quote
I love the bulk of these changes, especially the command node mechanic and the constellation focus.
As an autz player however I share the concerns of others regarding the autz being excluded from sov warfare to an even greater extent than under dominion sov.
Under dominion sov, autz could not participate in the structure fights timed for EU/us prime. However we could participate in the reinforcement of structures to generate those timers. Under this system we can't even do that.
Could you please consider tweaks to these mechanics to allow us to participate on the fringes as we did before?
One idea I have quickly thought of is requiring an alliance to pick two 'primetimes'. The four hour prime already included and then a secondary time of perhaps one to two hours. This secondary time couldn't be with, say, five hours of the prime time. A ustz alliance would therefore be forced to chose a secondary time in eutz or autz. Some ustz alliances with no eu tz could be forced to chose autz. The sov laser could be made to cycle longer in the secondary period as well.
This may be a bad idea but I think a number of players have recognized that the prime time mechanic is very exclusive as currently expressed. Could you please make it more flexible?
I accept that autz may gain additional value in devaluing sov indices as autz can be a popular time to rat for some alliances.
Good work so far!
|
Zhalon
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:34:20 -
[1092] - Quote
1) I'm worried it is to easy for sov holders to be harassed by frigates with an entosis link and just disable structures/services with no plan to come back and actually fight for them....no fights would be generated just trolling. 2) I like the prime time setting...the aggressor should have to deal with time zone issues...defender should have this advantage 3) I like the freeport concept. 4) I worry about the role of capitals now with no structure grind...I'm sure you have something for POSes that will make capitals necessary.... 5) I see how this would divide up fights, but I don't see how this stops someone from bringing the numbers. 6) Holding sov space and grinding the indices isn't valuable enough and in some ways just makes you a target to cloaky campers. I think you should looking at the rewards for holding sov....not sure how you address cloaky campers.
Idea: Command nodes should have gates. Only defending and attacking alliances can take the gate. Attacking alliance can only have one more ship inside than defending alliance. A defender/attackers allies can secure the gate so that enemy reinforcements are blocked.
This maintains fights for all and makes sure that attackers can't overwhelm defenders with 100 pilots. I think the idea could be flushed out more and you could incorporate capitals but only with cynos on the command node....capitals couldn't take gate. |
Alexandre Bellenger
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
59
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:36:35 -
[1093] - Quote
The biggest problem these changes fail to address is the actual need for owning sovereignty, as others have stated. With lower income rates than most other areas in the game (see https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5547866#post5547866), the only reason to own sov in the current state of the game is A) to build supercaps and B) to plant your flag in space for E-PEEN factor. Content creation is stagnant (which these changes do somewhat address), but without incentive no one in this game will want to create said content.
Aside from a needed buff to nullsec and reasons to live in it, there must also be less of a reason to own so much space. For nullsec players, the #1 staple source of income and incentive to live in null is nullsec anomalies. Missions, incursions, tower reactions, etc can all be done elsewhere, but the level of anomalies present in null can be found nowhere else.
The larger your sov nullsec alliance, the more members you have wanting this level of income. So the more members you have, the more anomalies you need to keep everyone happy and staying in your alliance. Anomalies are capped at a certain amount per system, so you can only have so many members utilizing a single system. This is the sole reason why major power blocs own entire region(s). An alliance like Goonswarm Federation can and would gladly live in 10-20 systems if the system simply allowed for it. A larger population density in individual systems would allow for greater content, less mass ownership of systems by powerblocs, and therefore greater opportunity for smaller groups to take sovereignty without being contested by said powerblocs.
How to do so? The answer has been thrown at you for months now, by anyone from random pubbies like myself to well known bloggers. Allowing mission agents in nullsec stations allows for infinite population density in a single small area. Agents implemented in the form of rented teams forces the top of the alliance to put money into providing for the members, something that must happen in more diverse ways than just SRP. But nontheless, mission agents in nullsec would solve the population density problem and allow for alliances to live in much smaller areas, with the same numbers.
If implemented, alliances would naturally find themselves drawn to central hubs, where standing fleets and safety in numbers provide a greater benefit than simply spreading out to the far corners of the region. As alliances coalesce, some constellations will find their occupancy indices tick down, and suddenly a nearby NPC null or Lowsec dwelling alliance may find themselves being able to contest these systems and, after enough harassment, able to take them. In the current eve, were most systems in CFC space are being used, the taking of such systems simply wouldn't be allowed to happen. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2063
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:39:30 -
[1094] - Quote
so to further the idea may i present you the tech II rokh
Role: Flag ship
Caldari Battleship bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to all shield resistances
Flag ship bonus: 10% reduction in signature radius per level 10% reduction in reload time for shield repair systems
role bonus: can fit Entosis Link
tech II abbadon:
Amarr Battleship bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Large Energy Turret damage 4% bonus to all armor resistances
Flag ship bonus: 10% reduction in signature radius per level 10% reduction in reload time for Armor repair systems
role bonus: can fit Entosis Link
tech II hyperion: Gallente Battleship bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer amount
Flag ship bonus: 10% reduction in signature radius per level 10% reduction in reload time for Armor repair systems
role bonus: can fit Entosis Link
tech II mael: Minmatar Battleship bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount
Flag ship bonus: 10% reduction in signature radius per level 10% reduction in reload time for shield repair systems
role bonus: can fit Entosis Link
the idea is only flag ships can use the Entosis Link. the Entosis Link makes it so you cant warp or get remote repair so having a ship like the old tier 3 battleships which all get a native tank bonus will help them survive attacks. To add to thier ability to survive they get a signature radius reduction which will help against incoming dps. also the roload time bonus is meant for auxiliary repair units to keep up ability to tank incoming dps.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
S3ND3TH
Czerka. Out Of The Void
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:40:50 -
[1095] - Quote
Kyonko Nola wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kyonko Nola wrote:I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time In which case an atron (to halt the inty's progress) and a few HACs will have a shooting gallery. I sincerely encourage WAFFLES to try that 100 inties thing. What I am concerned is that with other things happening around the grid, a gang of inties with the module running all the time orbiting 250 km will be hard for the defenders to actually do something about them. Best case, it would be annoying. There are a lot of factors involved and I think that it is extremely disadvantageous for the defenders. But what do I know about SOV. And I do not speak for my corporation, just inputting my opinion for ccp to consider. Also Waffles.
an interceptor could probably only target out to maybe 150km with mwd, sebos, and maybe even signal amps and rigs just maxing it out on distance. but a couple things that would need to be known are what happens when the ship gets out of range or loses lock? what if it mwds or gets knocked 260km? and what happens when they are jammed? could a hostile target, start the hack, then when defenders warp ongrid get jammed by an ally and then be able to warp off? likely the successful activation of the module will start a timer to inhibit warp. if this is the case then being in an interceptor and unable to warp is not so good. just need a faster ship to run him down. i hope it doesn't completely inhibit movement. if so, then something like a blackbird or a scorpion would be a good choice because it will probably be like a cyno and mids will still work.
if the module is made to fit larger ships mostly then you know what else this means.......new ships with bonuses to taking sov. maybe a set of heavy destroyers that can get a bonus to capture. |
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:41:04 -
[1096] - Quote
...just restore firepower, range and add instalock to all subcaps. Let's make this the bloodbath we all deserve. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
905
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:44:48 -
[1097] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:I have now actively posted in this thread for just under 3 prime times, yet I work a rolling shift pattern so I'll only be effective on my alliances prime time one week in 4. Guess I'll play elite or one of the x series on the other three weeks....
Corner cases are a *****. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:48:55 -
[1098] - Quote
Zhalon wrote:1) ....not sure how you address cloaky campers.
No local, no afk cloaker. The answer is to just delay local and actually make nullsec challenging to live in. Guard your gates, scout the routes to your home. There should be consequences for being lazy nullbears.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:49:57 -
[1099] - Quote
Kyonko Nola wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kyonko Nola wrote:I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time In which case an atron (to halt the inty's progress) and a few HACs will have a shooting gallery. I sincerely encourage WAFFLES to try that 100 inties thing. What I am concerned is that with other things happening around the grid, a gang of inties with the module running all the time orbiting 250 km will be hard for the defenders to actually do something about them. Best case, it would be annoying. There are a lot of factors involved and I think that it is extremely disadvantageous for the defenders. But what do I know about SOV. And I do not speak for my corporation, just inputting my opinion for ccp to consider. Also Waffles.
Show me the inty fit that locks at 250. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and tank a sniper Muninn. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and outrun a speed fit PVP inty/pirate frig. |
Kerrat Braban
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:50:05 -
[1100] - Quote
How it could be done (my opinion only)
Only living in a system increases the SOV index for the Alliance
Living gives SOV points. Living meaning NPC kills, PvP Kills and losses, mining, PI, exploring, industrial activities, maybe even hours presence x number of pilots and other activities I sure forgot.
Structures (incl. POS and POCOS) increase the rate at which the index is going up (only increases rate, don't gives points by itself). Competing structures? Maybe?
Several competing alliance indexes are possible, the alliance with highest index (by a margin) has SOV, if margin is too small it's "Shared" (or "Contested" depending on # PvP kills), if no one reaches the minimum margin the system is unoccupied.
No more bashing, no more structure turning (which still is no fun ... 40 minutes orbiting with a link on?), though that could be still incorporated ONCE A SYSTEM CHANGED SOV.
BTW you forgot the POCOs in your draft? They still have to be bashed, right? |
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:51:05 -
[1101] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Zhalon wrote:1) ....not sure how you address cloaky campers.
No local, no afk cloaker. The answer is to just delay local and actually make nullsec challenging to live in. Guard your gates, scout the routes to your home. There should be consequences for being lazy nullbears.
correct. this system changes how you think about null. If you have a strategically important system that you want to keep, act like it and have a standing fleet to protect your damn space. |
Orontes Ovasi
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:54:04 -
[1102] - Quote
I'd rather have POS sov than a literally useless mechanic that encourages fleeing as soon as enemies appear and reinforcing things elsewhere than it does combat. Let alone making supers/caps near worthless in nullsec, encouraging horrid mono-tz borefests where US Nulli and RUTZ Stainwagon will literally never fight again.
And to all the retards arguing that you just entosis link a gang of 30 with your own, what do you do when that gang splits into 2-3? And roams reinforcing and shutting down systems for the 4hr primetime they have?
Question though: Will reinforcing the industry service with the entosis link cause jobs to be canceled? Because that'd be hilariously broken.
Kudos though, I thought that a change that more encouraged stagnation/defending wouldn't be possible after phoebe and the introduction of jump fatigay, clearly I was incorrect. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
588
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:54:24 -
[1103] - Quote
Maybe someone could explain to me...what is the benefit to population/activity based bonus for defense.
CCP wants pvp. 0.0 this usually involves the road trip experience.
Can't take the whole gang with you since someone has to keep bonuses up.
Soooo....how is this sponsoring PVP? It seems to be sponsoring turtle tactics with current space held and little to no road trip action plans for the future. Less pvp potentially as I see it really.
Well that and why are null bear heavy crews looking to get a boost form this? Those people you have to raise taxes to 100% to get out of the pve ship and into a pvp ship to you know...pvp. Avoiding pvp till corps has to do this tax rate change....should not be encouraged with a bonus imo. |
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:56:29 -
[1104] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Zhalon wrote:1) ....not sure how you address cloaky campers.
No local, no afk cloaker. The answer is to just delay local and actually make nullsec challenging to live in. Guard your gates, scout the routes to your home. There should be consequences for being lazy nullbears. How about someone removes security from hisec so u have to pay attention to the hisec miner fuelling your afk camper? Oh, the tears, the tears... |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:01:58 -
[1105] - Quote
Karbowiak wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Karbowiak wrote:Am i the only one wishing that we'd get the old pos warfare sov system back? no, i liked that and it was significantly better in a lot of ways than this or dominion it was completely broken by AOE doomsdays protecting cynojammers, but that's gotten fixed, and fuel blocks exist now True story. Plus with the POS system, you could take a system in about a day, instead of spending a week taking on system. Yes you had to steamroll a system with lots of dreads, but compared to the current system, or the proposed one, you atleast had a light at the end of the tunnel. Meh, whatever..
i never ever thought i would say this but i agree. bring back the whole pos system or something like it. i mean people complain about grinding but it leads to hot drops, fights, and bitter old vets (anyone who was around during the pos sov years knows what i mean)
but i doubt it matters since CCP has already stopped reading this thread as can be noticed by the lack of dev feedback or of answering any questions. |
Ser Berus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:05:53 -
[1106] - Quote
Just so we're clear, this is a perfect illustration of why using the development indexes as they are today is so hilariously stupid:
http://i.imgur.com/n84nWAH.png
Sure is a lotta mining happening in that there nullsec, yep
Edit: theta squad, sov backbone of the goonswarm federation |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
856
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:07:11 -
[1107] - Quote
Infrequent wrote:All of these null anom bear tears, my god this is a gold mine. Can't wait for these changes, if you're threatening to leave null or infact Eve in general because CCP are actually making educated decisions on Eve's most prominent issue, good because the game really does not need people like you.
Keep it up CCP, once things get ironed out, tweaks made, numbers crunched, we'll have us a fantastic set of changes coming to null that'll finally work to get it out of it's sorry state.
Eve needs every player it can get and keep.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
174
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:07:51 -
[1108] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:Karbowiak wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Karbowiak wrote:Am i the only one wishing that we'd get the old pos warfare sov system back? no, i liked that and it was significantly better in a lot of ways than this or dominion it was completely broken by AOE doomsdays protecting cynojammers, but that's gotten fixed, and fuel blocks exist now True story. Plus with the POS system, you could take a system in about a day, instead of spending a week taking on system. Yes you had to steamroll a system with lots of dreads, but compared to the current system, or the proposed one, you atleast had a light at the end of the tunnel. Meh, whatever.. i never ever thought i would say this but i agree. bring back the whole pos system or something like it. i mean people complain about grinding but it leads to hot drops, fights, and bitter old vets (anyone who was around during the pos sov years knows what i mean) but i doubt it matters since CCP has already stopped reading this thread as can be noticed by the lack of dev feedback or of answering any questions.
lol you honestly think fozzie was going to communicate on this epic thread right now?? you remember when greyscale tried it and was countered left and right.. he left the building claiming he was sick...(and went home to hide in his cave) |
Barbaydos
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:09:35 -
[1109] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:Karbowiak wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Karbowiak wrote:Am i the only one wishing that we'd get the old pos warfare sov system back? no, i liked that and it was significantly better in a lot of ways than this or dominion it was completely broken by AOE doomsdays protecting cynojammers, but that's gotten fixed, and fuel blocks exist now True story. Plus with the POS system, you could take a system in about a day, instead of spending a week taking on system. Yes you had to steamroll a system with lots of dreads, but compared to the current system, or the proposed one, you atleast had a light at the end of the tunnel. Meh, whatever.. i never ever thought i would say this but i agree. bring back the whole pos system or something like it. i mean people complain about grinding but it leads to hot drops, fights, and bitter old vets (anyone who was around during the pos sov years knows what i mean) but i doubt it matters since CCP has already stopped reading this thread as can be noticed by the lack of dev feedback or of answering any questions.
usually they wait about 24 hours so that people can get the collective rage out and a semblance of rational thought starts to reappear... plus the actual changes proposed here dont take effect for a few months so they have time to troll through the threadnought |
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
190
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:36:26 -
[1110] - Quote
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.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1796
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:44:29 -
[1111] - Quote
If I overheat my guns with an entosis link active will it take heat damage and burnt out? Would this allow me to inactivate the module at will and warp away?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
666
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:45:32 -
[1112] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Zhalon wrote:1) ....not sure how you address cloaky campers.
No local, no afk cloaker. The answer is to just delay local and actually make nullsec challenging to live in. Guard your gates, scout the routes to your home. There should be consequences for being lazy nullbears. correct. this system changes how you think about null. If you have a strategically important system that you want to keep, act like it and have a standing fleet to protect your damn space. I see you and CCP are of like mind. Both of you just want to make sov warfare as "dynamic" and "engaging" as possible, and knowingly place the emphasis in this new system under the attacking force, rather than the defending force. And yet you fail to address the reasons why someone might want to hold that sov in the first place.
EVE is risk AND reward. The balance is currently too far skewed towards risk in nullsec, and this expansion does little to really address rewards as it increases risks even further.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
23614
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:57:55 -
[1113] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:And yet you fail to address the reasons why someone might want to hold that sov in the first place.
I'm asking because I don't know. Why do alliances hold the space that they do today? The changes don't specifically change the motivations for holding the space, so why would you ask this question now?
Rush to danger, wind up nowhere
Sabriz for CSM go go go
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1939
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:59:31 -
[1114] - Quote
Barbaydos wrote:Cr Turist wrote:Karbowiak wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Karbowiak wrote:Am i the only one wishing that we'd get the old pos warfare sov system back? no, i liked that and it was significantly better in a lot of ways than this or dominion it was completely broken by AOE doomsdays protecting cynojammers, but that's gotten fixed, and fuel blocks exist now True story. Plus with the POS system, you could take a system in about a day, instead of spending a week taking on system. Yes you had to steamroll a system with lots of dreads, but compared to the current system, or the proposed one, you atleast had a light at the end of the tunnel. Meh, whatever.. i never ever thought i would say this but i agree. bring back the whole pos system or something like it. i mean people complain about grinding but it leads to hot drops, fights, and bitter old vets (anyone who was around during the pos sov years knows what i mean) but i doubt it matters since CCP has already stopped reading this thread as can be noticed by the lack of dev feedback or of answering any questions. usually they wait about 24 hours so that people can get the collective rage out and a semblance of rational thought starts to reappear... plus the actual changes proposed here dont take effect for a few months so they have time to troll through the threadnought That and it is 6 am fozzie time right now. He may be a legend. But even legends need a bit of sleep. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:03:14 -
[1115] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Zhalon wrote:1) ....not sure how you address cloaky campers.
No local, no afk cloaker. The answer is to just delay local and actually make nullsec challenging to live in. Guard your gates, scout the routes to your home. There should be consequences for being lazy nullbears. correct. this system changes how you think about null. If you have a strategically important system that you want to keep, act like it and have a standing fleet to protect your damn space. I see you and CCP are of like mind. Both of you just want to make sov warfare as "dynamic" and "engaging" as possible, and knowingly place the emphasis in this new system under the attacking force, rather than the defending force. And yet you fail to address the reasons why someone might want to hold that sov in the first place. EVE is risk AND reward. The balance is currently too far skewed towards risk in nullsec, and this expansion does little to really address rewards as it increases risks even further.
Having the luxury of a local channel tell you who is in system is very risky indeed. Its so hard to live in nullsec.
We have all sorts of risks in wspace. We deal with those risks and still get our rewards. You want more safety in nullsec? Maybe CCP should just extend your local channel to constellation wide so you can see reds farther out. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
319
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:10:10 -
[1116] - Quote
Talbrys Narentyr wrote:Edit: And for those who keep saying "well you can stop their progress by putting your own sov lazor on it" are ********. Then it just becomes a battle of who is willing to stay logged on longer. The only way this could possibly work is if it was a cruiser size and above. If it can be put on an inty it's the end of sov warfare and the beginning of sov trolling.
If your alliance cannot be bothered to have one person put one E-link on a structure in their HOME SYSTEM for, AT MOST, 4 hours during your PRIMARY PLAYTIME then you have no business owning sov anywhere. The whole point of this system is to make AFK, sprawling sov a thing of the past. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:17:29 -
[1117] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Talbrys Narentyr wrote:Edit: And for those who keep saying "well you can stop their progress by putting your own sov lazor on it" are ********. Then it just becomes a battle of who is willing to stay logged on longer. The only way this could possibly work is if it was a cruiser size and above. If it can be put on an inty it's the end of sov warfare and the beginning of sov trolling.
If your alliance cannot be bothered to have one person put one E-link on a structure in their HOME SYSTEM for, AT MOST, 4 hours during your PRIMARY PLAYTIME then you have no business owning sov anywhere. The whole point of this system is to make AFK, sprawling sov a thing of the past.
I thought the whole point was to boost smaller entities who may struggle to do just this for 4 hours, 365days a year! |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
319
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:21:15 -
[1118] - Quote
Lister Vindaloo wrote:There is no excuse for being able to use your 'prime time' window to exclude entire time zones from participating in alliance/corporation activities, it is simply a divisive, segregating mechanic that will disillusion entire groups from attempting to participate in sov warfare, it HAS to go, i dont know how to respond to anyone who supports it as it only reduces content rather than increase it
There are only two fixes to the TZ problem.
Turn sov into "turn-based" gameplay. That is basically what we have today. Timers go uncontested. Fleets are moved en-mass to overwhelmingly capture an objective. It's like playing civ.. you stack your units until you have overwhelming force to take a city, then move in at once and take it in an all-or-nothing move. Any competent defending player simply removes their units so as not to waste losses on an unwinnable defensive fight (defense fleet never shows up to defend timer). Or they amass sufficient defense that the attacker removes THEIR army and doesn't even bother on the attempt (attack fleet never shows up to finish timer). This is the state of things today.
Or, sov can be real-time gameplay, requiring actual interaction with other humans flying other spaceships. Real-time interactions result in escalating fleet situations that aren't all-or-nothing predetermined outcomes. Unfortunately, CCP cannot fix the reality that real-time interactions can only happen between people that are online at roughly the same times without inventing time-travel. As a result, sov interactions will be gated by TZ by the laws of reality. Accept and adapt. |
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
71
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:23:58 -
[1119] - Quote
I thought Greyscale left the company? If these two blogs are any indication his ghost is alive and well. |
Locke DieDrake
The Arrow Project
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:27:45 -
[1120] - Quote
Kyonko Nola wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kyonko Nola wrote:I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time In which case an atron (to halt the inty's progress) and a few HACs will have a shooting gallery. I sincerely encourage WAFFLES to try that 100 inties thing. What I am concerned is that with other things happening around the grid, a gang of inties with the module running all the time orbiting 250 km will be hard for the defenders to actually do something about them. Best case, it would be annoying. There are a lot of factors involved and I think that it is extremely disadvantageous for the defenders. But what do I know about SOV. And I do not speak for my corporation, just inputting my opinion for ccp to consider. Also Waffles.
1) Show me a fit for an inty with 250km lock range.
2) Show me the same fit that doesn't die in one or two vollies to a sniper fit eagle.
|
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
321
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:28:32 -
[1121] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:I thought the whole point was to boost smaller entities who may struggle to do just this for 4 hours, 365days a year!
No, the point is to boost smaller entities who can't field thousands of structure bashing ships on-demand, 24/7/365, along with associated supercap dominance. "Smaller" doesn't mean one-man alliances who want their name on a system, it means 50 or 100 man groups which, if actually actively living in a region of nullsec, should have absolutely no problem managing to defensive E-link their structures across a few systems on a daily basis.
More importantly, it's theoretically designed so that the 50 or 100 man group doing this has no particular incentive to join a large blue coalition nor does the large blue coalition have any reasonable chance of forcing this group out of their space permanently unless they actually plan to move there.
As for the cases where CFC will just occasionally steamroll the map and reset sov everywhere, well... yeah. They'll do that, it'll last 3 days, then they'll get bored and go back to their highsec incursion alts or freighter gankers or afktars ratting anoms close to their home systems and the people actually LIVING in those other places will just come back and re-establish sov for the remaining 362 days that year. Some people like to call that content. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:29:20 -
[1122] - Quote
Will this help to populate the vast regions of the south where the true sec is horrific and the distance between stations too far to be bridged? Proberbly not.
Will it help to busy up the drone regions? Proberbly not.
Will it make cloud ring worth owning? No but vega and evoke will Proberbly try anyways...
So not really expanding on 0.0 are we.. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30740
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:32:53 -
[1123] - Quote
A note about API notifications. With Neocom (iPhone) plugged into calendar, events such as timers are plotted on my phone's calendar automatically.
This would be great for something like a station 'tosis timer, but the delay on API calls gets in the way of this being viable. Is it possible to make 'tosis timers send a burst of that API endpoint?
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
69
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:34:08 -
[1124] - Quote
Remember. This isn't a "fix null sec forever and for always" expansion. This is a "sovereignty mechancis overhaul" expansion. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
667
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:39:55 -
[1125] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Having the luxury of a local channel tell you who is in system is very risky indeed. Its so hard to live in nullsec.
We have all sorts of risks in wspace. We deal with those risks and still get our rewards. You want more safety in nullsec? Maybe CCP should just extend your local channel to constellation wide so you can see reds farther out. It seems my point flew entirely over your head. I'm not asking for more safety. I'm asking for more reward. I'm asking for sov to be worth something. If you want people to accept risks, then you have to give them a good reason to do so, otherwise they'll go elsewhere or quit the game entirely.
You also have mechanics in place that mitigate the risks. Your PVE is optimally done in fleets, whereas in nullsec it's optimally done solo. Your PVE is optimally done with fits that closer approximate PVP fits, whereas in nullsec this will seriously hurt your already meager income. The amount of firepower that an attacking force can bring into your system is limited by your wormhole connections to other systems, and you can change these connections at will. People who want to assault your properly defended infrastructure fight an uphill battle.
Literally the only advantage you don't have is local.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Grezh
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:42:02 -
[1126] - Quote
Yugo 60 wrote:[ Problem: Interceptors Having "uncatchable" fleets of interceptors troll reinforcing everything in the region (or two) during one evening every single time that some structure is out of RF just for the heck of it (and to make sov holders form up for def all the time) is not what I would call a good mechanics. CHANGE INTERCEPTORS to make them catchable or give them inability of RFing.
I raise you the sniping battleship, able to swat away any foolish interceptor that turn a capture mod on since they can't warp away. The idea that inties would suddenly become ridiculous with this change seems to gloss over the fact that you cant warp for 2 min and need to stay there for 10+ min with the module active and since the most I've been able to get an interceptor to lock is ~130 km (all sebos+rigs with no prop) so any small gang of sniping ships would slaughter the paper thin ships when they try to capture. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30740
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:42:34 -
[1127] - Quote
Please make this station alert sound a thing. Complete with flashing red lights in hangar and CQ. #allhandsondick
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
667
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:44:28 -
[1128] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:And yet you fail to address the reasons why someone might want to hold that sov in the first place. I'm asking because I don't know. Why do alliances hold the space that they do today? The changes don't specifically change the motivations for holding the space, so why would you ask this question now? The biggest reason probably comes down to "we still want to be on top if this game ever becomes fun again".
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:47:07 -
[1129] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Sibyyl wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:And yet you fail to address the reasons why someone might want to hold that sov in the first place. I'm asking because I don't know. Why do alliances hold the space that they do today? The changes don't specifically change the motivations for holding the space, so why would you ask this question now? The biggest reason probably comes down to "we still want to be on top if this game ever becomes fun again".
Quoting myself:
"Remember. This isn't a "fix null sec forever and for always" expansion. This is a "sovereignty mechancis overhaul" expansion."
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
398
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:47:27 -
[1130] - Quote
so for your example maps all of your examples were taken from the only NRDS space in the entire game. I'm wondering why you chose that for your example? It would seem that under the current mechanics provi is some of the most active small and medium gang null sec space in game and I would guess also some of the most used space. If anything it should be used as an example of what is working and not what needs to be changed.
As far as the changes themselves I won't say that they are bad or not an improvement it just doesn't seem to change all that much to me. I mean from your stated goal I fail to see how this makes huge strides towards any kind of major change.
It also bugs me that you focused on sov changing mechanics as if that was where null needed work when I do not feel that was what needed the most attention. Sov changes should be something rare and not a huge part of the day to day life in null. You focused on sov changing mechanics in null and are going to somehow claim that will change the day to day living in null? It's not that I am unhappy with the changes in that I think they will negatively impact the game as I don't. It's that I am unhappy with the changes because you spent time developing this when you could have been developing something useful.
If you want null to be active with all kinds of players and be active and used then you need to change how sov holders make their isk from the space that they own. You also would want to have them make isk off of neuts and give them the tools to manage NRDS effectively as having huge sections of blue space with locked down borders does not encourage fights or make them more likely to happen but having tons of unknowns and neuts flying around does.
In real life we say things like follow the money because money trails tell you a lot about motivating factors. If you want to control how space is used and how it is held and why it is held you need to change the motivating factors. What you have done here is change the mechanics on how to own space which is far less effective than changing the mechanics of why you own space.
These changes largely seem like a huge waste of dev time. I can't believe you are spending half of a year on this turd. I'm hoping some one there at CCP gets a clue about motivating factors and human interactions. I am so let down by this blog that I don't think that I'll feel compelled to watch **** and / or fap for at least a day or two. |
|
Forza Lyandre
House of Nim-Lhach Skeleton Crew.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:49:12 -
[1131] - Quote
Dear CCP,
I have read the Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two and it was actually very interesting. I think it will encourage more fight and hopefully more content. I might have some problem with the "Prime Time" system. Since it is only 4 hrs windows for every day and it is based on the alliance prime time. So it is only logical that every alliance pick the 4 hrs window based on their member prime time also. This is a very good concept, but this will encourage alliance to only recruit corp that match their Prime Time. I thought that EvE is diverse, multi cultural and ethnic. This Prime Time system seems to against that notion. I donGÇÖt like to think that there will be a case where a corp is deemed not contributing enough to the alliance just because most of the member is in different time zone. And to be honest from my point of view this is a bit racist, because the logical implication of the system not the idea behind the system.
My suggestion is that the Prime Time is where the entire defense bonus it at 100% and when it is not their Prime Time the bonus is multiplied let say 500% or more. I know it is probably not the best solution it. But if is there any solution that still encourages alliance to recruit corp from different time zone, culture and ethnic I am very happy.
Thanks.
|
Exe Om
The Grand Assembly
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:53:51 -
[1132] - Quote
Questions:
- What happens if a pilot is not in an alliance and still go and activate the Entosis link on a structure in an empty system?
- Will there be any roles given to the pilot who actually uses the Enthosis Link, so he can go capture on behalf of the alliance? If not, how can an Alliance leader controls who to attack and who not to when every member goes crazy attacking everyone. Standings and politics get hit. New type of awoxers rise.
- Assuming most of the structure shooting is out, what happens to POCO's? Will the new system be implemented on their ownership switching also?
- Jump Bridges need more explanation for their status during the change of hands of the solar system.
- In stations, when having a research/manufacturing job(or in POS'es manufacturing a capital) the station changes hands, and new owner set crazy tax on indy works, what happens to the active jobs?
Thanks,
Good or bad, change is always good on the long run.
It is not enough that I succeed, all other must fail
|
STUMZ
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:56:27 -
[1133] - Quote
So all for all multi tz alliances we now see sov decided in one tz's 4 hour window.
How clever is that? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
856
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:57:09 -
[1134] - Quote
You are making holding space into even more of a chore than it already is. Why would I continue to hold space? Why wouldn't I just move all my stuff into Serpentis Prime and grief any poor fools who want to try to own space to the point where they quit?
My only option is to join a group so large and well-organized that I don't have to worry about multiple objectives spread across a number of constellations.
Forget having a small corp with thirty active pilots in each timezone and trying to hold a home by having loose friendships with some of your neighbors to help out if 100-200 hostiles show up. The occasional alarm clock op is way preferable to "max dudes logged in during prime time every night until the server shuts down. Scouts in every system. Oh, and you bitches better be ratting constantly and mining too! But we'll all use Vexors so it doesn't matter if we get hotdropped by the permanent AFK cloaky."
Forget having to commit meaningful resources to take space from someone. It was bad enough that we could grind structures with stealth bombers. Now we can do it with other cheap ships and evade and harass until the defender just get sick of it and leaves.
This version of Eve will not be fun. Step 1: AFK cloak until system index goes down. Step 2: blue ball harassment with cheap fleets until your opponent stops logging in. No good fights because there is nothing the attacker must commit or risk. The defender just has to screw up once or lose morale very briefly and he's done. Step 3: Everything everyone invested in their Eve home goes poof. All those upgrades gone. If you are away for the weekend, everything in your station is lost. Step 4: gloat over the charred wasteland and wonder why there used to be 50k people online and now there are 15-20k.
This gets worse once you listen to the people who live in HS, LS, and NPC null and make the stations destructible. The people who love this idea are the people who don't give a **** about owning space or having a 0.0 home.
What are Supercapitals and capitals good for now? Defending the money moons, which will be the only thing worth owning once everything is slashed and burned. But good luck getting started with that, because you won't have the security to build your own Supercapitals (unless you are already capable of doing it).
End result: 1. Buffs to largest, best-organized entities 2. Buffs to nomadic super capital rich groups 3. Buffs to NPC 0.0 and their afk cloaky hotdrop tactics 4. No real incentive to build anything long term or meaningful in 0.0 5. Anyone with a family or life either has 10000 friends or leaves 0.0 6. 0.0 space becomes even more empty and less interesting
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:00:37 -
[1135] - Quote
Exe Om wrote:Questions:
- What happens if a pilot is not in an alliance and still go and activate the Entosis link on a structure in an empty system?
- Will there be any roles given to the pilot who actually uses the Enthosis Link, so he can go capture on behalf of the alliance? If not, how can an Alliance leader controls who to attack and who not to when every member goes crazy attacking everyone. Standings and politics get hit. New type of awoxers rise.
- Assuming most of the structure shooting is out, what happens to POCO's? Will the new system be implemented on their ownership switching also?
- Jump Bridges need more explanation for their status during the change of hands of the solar system.
- In stations, when having a research/manufacturing job(or in POS'es manufacturing a capital) the station changes hands, and new owner set crazy tax on indy works, what happens to the active jobs?
Thanks,
Good or bad, change is always good on the long run.
1. Great question
2. Sounds fun!
3. POCOs and POSes are still structure grinds as they are not SOV structures
4. JBs are still tied to SOV level (Strategic?) and once the I-Hub explodes, JBs using that level go inert I would think.
5. During the freeport stage, would defenders not simply cancel all their jobs if they thought there was a chance they could lose? |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:01:43 -
[1136] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Having the luxury of a local channel tell you who is in system is very risky indeed. Its so hard to live in nullsec.
We have all sorts of risks in wspace. We deal with those risks and still get our rewards. You want more safety in nullsec? Maybe CCP should just extend your local channel to constellation wide so you can see reds farther out.
WH space has greater reward for your greater risk. Far greater than that of the typically null player, which right now is in line with a high sec incursion runner.
Local chat is not as great of a safety net as you all like to pretend it is. Last I checked local didn't tell you who was several jumps over in a BLOPs nor if that player has a cyno equip. But WH space also doesn't have to fear getting hot dropped as they do not typically have that many solo activities. Making their only true threat a sizable gang crashing their party.
That aside these changes now allow that cloaky camper to now also possibly be wielding a module that can cripple your system if you are not on constant guard all on his own. This is far too much power for a single player to wield against the sovereignty of hundreds. And may I add, please get the idea that local is going anywhere out of your heads. You're literally ~12 years too late for that complaint. GET OVER IT! It's seriously like nails on a chalkboard when that is used for a reason supporting an imbalanced activity with no reasonable counter.
If CCP wants to release anything remotely close to this they have a few issues they need to address: 1) Ship hull restrictions for this new module (BC/BS/cap only) something that is actually vulnerable to attack and not likely to just waltz into your space on a whim
2) Make player want to spread out. Alliance may want more sov to save on pos fuel, but convince their player base to go rat/mine in that 0.0 - -0.5 system next to an populated npc system. RISK vs REWARD ---In other words rework true sec before you rework sov mechanics, or put them in the same patch at the very least.
3) Putting in place a reasonable counter to cloak mechanics that requires both parties to pay attention and interact. EX: pos mod pulse that disables cloak for x time with y cd. Or something along those lines... There are far better ideas I'm sure that both parties can agree to.
4) Give some actual advantages to holding sov, give the player a reason to fight. Possibly give indices more of a purpose: -lower all structure HP to start, military now gives a small passive omni resist bonus to all structures/ships in system giving structures slightly more EHP at lvl 5 than we currently see. -industry now increases copy/build job speeds / refine rates done in system Those are just examples but you see those bonuses have meaning at the player level, not just alliance. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:02:48 -
[1137] - Quote
STUMZ wrote:So all for all multi tz alliances we now see sov decided in one tz's 4 hour window.
How clever is that?
This is the one part of this system that I absolutely expect to change. My suggestion is here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5547628#post5547628 |
Matanui1488
VX9 Intergalactic Gaming Inc. Sanctuary Pact
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:04:54 -
[1138] - Quote
I don't agree with all of the aforementioned changes although I think the overall concept of small gang and or smaller fleet sov warfare is good although the inidcies being plagued by afk cloaky red campers is ****. As far the other changes I need to delve into the murky waters once more and see how I feel about them. |
Callduron
Corporate Scum Brave Collective
616
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:06:54 -
[1139] - Quote
The principle effect of this is to make null space more dangerous and promote more conflict. As written it seems certain to do that.
We've heard a lot from sov players but the people most buffed by this are the NPC null residents: MOA, Tec-nology etc who live to **** with the nearby sov holders. There will be constant harassment and small roaming gangs of frigates or dessies will provoke home defence fleets which can be dropped on or otherwise engaged.
Regarding the issue of risk v reward nullsec is meant to be dangerous and by making it more dangerous the value of operating in nullsec successfully goes up for some activities. For instance arkonor is worth less than veldspar because very large amounts of it are mined in nullsec pushing the price down. If less people mine in nullsec because it has become more dangerous then the ore will be worth more.
Also reward isn't strictly necessary to create an exciting sov game. Why would hostiles tear down your ****? Because they can, that's all the reason needed.
Regarding the issue of the timer people will use watchlists, killboards and other information sources to analyse enemy activity and then target the weakest time. It would be horrible defending space that could easily be put into reinforcement or hubs destroyed at a time of the attacker's choosing. Alliance members outside the main vulnerability time remain useful for attacking other people's space, which is likely to generate non-aggression treaties and other deals.
The Officer Training School is recruiting. Join channel OffTS.
I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/
I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
http://i.imgur.com/LftttGz.jpg
|
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1074
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:06:56 -
[1140] - Quote
Hello CCP,
So first I want to say thank you for all your hard work & dedication. I really like new release cadence , clear roadmap & bold changes. I am and the community should be really grateful for Seagull's amazing leadership. My first impressions of the sov system are favorable. I see where you want to go and what motivated you to create this system. I think it will create a chance for a very dynamic and entertaining experience. It is also clear this system will be flexible enough to make iteration easy. I do however have some questions , feedback & advice. So I will start with some initial questions.
Will the Entosis cycle be affected by TIDI? ( I hope so otherwise Wyvern > Levi >Avatar > Aeon supremacy )
I feel like the 4 hour window is to short. (I would recommend 6)
Can a Entosis module be used by a ship in Triage , Siege or Bastion? ( I hope not. )
Will sov cost reduce or increase with Indices? ( If not you are missing the boat )
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. )
How does all the Risk of Living in Nullsec compare to the rewards of other safer areas in Eve?
Supercapital Role ?
Now let me play game designer if I may. I would use this system along with the Phoebe jump changes. With a few changes and additions. Entosis cycle would be affected by TIDI and would not be able to be activated by a ship in Bastion , Triage or Siege. Sov cost would have a base median value and indices would gain negative values. Meaning @ 0 use they would slowly dip towards negative indices values. The lower the negative value of indices the more expensive the sov bill. The higher the value of positive indices the cheaper the sov bill. Furthermore sovereignty owned by an alliance not connected to the main body of sov would have a premium charge ( a fixed % increase over base sov cost ).
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.
Furthermore this makes attrition style warfare real. It also adds to the dynamics of living in nullsec. It answers the question of what do "off prime time players do"? Raiding and interfering with groups logistical and production efforts now has real and meaningful ramifications. Defending against those who would seek to raid also has important value. No longer are PVP'rs the end all be all of alliance members. In a nullsec where the chord to easy supply ( Jita) is severed productionist , logisticians , miners now have a important role in nullsec which leads to a more inclusive dynamic atmosphere in alliance culture.
It's means empire bordering nullsec regions now have new and unique value that due to the Jump Freighter became unimportant years ago. Conversely deeper remote regions with great riches have unique value due to higher abundance of resources. This all adds to reasons for people in space doing things. Reasons for conquest reasons for defense.
WIth attrition style warfare , Jump Fatigue & Sov 3.0 think about all the dynamics of conquest and defense. Questions like:
Where is my beachhead? What's the geography around my beachhead? What is the makeup of my target and what is their primetime? Who are their friends? What force do they have at their disposal? What kind of infrastructure do they have in place? ( stations , pos , jb's , beacons , ihub upgrades ) What kind of stockpiles & provisions do they have? What is there logistical and production capabilities? ( can they sustain a siege via local production ) What are my stockpiles and provisions? What capacity to I have to sustain siege?
These are some of the things you would have to consider. Once you do you can make a plan with multiple ways to approach conquest. One of my favorite scenarios is facing a stronger opponent. A opponent dug in with lots of infrastructure. The thought of a slow burn campaign with interdiction and denial being the initial phase. Reducing logistical and production capabilities of the mark while whittling down reserve stockpiles via combat. Pushing the mark into a situation slowly and carefully where the giant is now at the disadvantage. Taking their resources and using them to augment your production capabilities truly a double edged sword. A very exciting and dynamic environment.
@CCP an word of caution. I see CCP using metrics with a degree of ambiguity to re enforce a pre-conceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. A example of this was the recent blog over the Ishtar nerf. There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment. In reality however this could not be further from truth. So please rethink some of these metrics with graphs because always the devil is in the details.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny
|
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
398
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:13:13 -
[1141] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:
Primetime system that puts ALL the sov warfare obligations of a single alliance onto only one TZ is absolutely terrible. Why should I be excluded from participating because my alliance primetime is EU and I'm US? Is the solution to just "go find another alliance"?
Is forcing groups to ditch people outside of their primetime intended, since non primetime players are basically useless for anything except leeching and POS warfare.
This is an excellent point that I completely missed. Maybe you should consider making coalitions an official thing and and making anyone in that coalition on the same side either that or let the holding corp set the time so that you can have a variance within the Alliance. Or maybe allow an Alliance to select multiple vulnerability time blocks. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
590
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:19:39 -
[1142] - Quote
Rain honey, I was thinking the exact same thing
signature
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:22:27 -
[1143] - Quote
Callduron wrote:The principle effect of this is to make null space more dangerous and promote more conflict. As written it seems certain to do that.
We've heard a lot from sov players but the people most buffed by this are the NPC null residents: MOA, Tec-nology etc who live to **** with the nearby sov holders. There will be constant harassment and small roaming gangs of frigates or dessies will provoke home defence fleets which can be dropped on or otherwise engaged.
I've always loved home defence fleets in null and I'm really looking forward to this aspect. Lots of small crises popping up are great for a minor FC like myself and many players enjoy the smaller fleets.
Regarding the issue of risk v reward nullsec is meant to be dangerous and by making it more dangerous the value of operating in nullsec successfully goes up for some activities. For instance arkonor is worth less than veldspar because very large amounts of it are mined in nullsec pushing the price down. If less people mine in nullsec because it has become more dangerous then the ore will be worth more.
Also reward isn't strictly necessary to create an exciting sov game. Why would hostiles tear down your ****? Because they can, that's all the reason needed.
Regarding the issue of the timer people will use watchlists, killboards and other information sources to analyse enemy activity and then target the weakest time. It would be horrible defending space that could easily be put into reinforcement or hubs destroyed at a time of the attacker's choosing. Alliance members outside the main vulnerability time remain useful for attacking other people's space, which is likely to generate non-aggression treaties and other deals.
I want to correct something here, off topic a bit. But the reason Mega and Zydrine is worth so little is because of a blunder CCP made years ago. Stockpiles are still being burned through which is really why the price of those ores with those minerals are so horrid. Add to that nobody hauls tritanium, which is a large part of what you get from Ark (FYI I rat for my isk not mine, these are just some facts I know).
And while the reward to the attacker may just be to screw with the larger alliances by hitting their sov in a 0.0 system, the defender needs a reason to want defend or inhabit that space. Most if not all attacking forces wouldn't want to actually live out of such systems that are so easily hit. Largest reason for this is a large percentage of null space is exactly that thanks to the current true sec mechanic. |
Bill Lane
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
81
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:22:30 -
[1144] - Quote
Just thought I'd throw some thoughts out, think we need all the comments we can get on such a game-changing system.
First, absolutely 100% capital underlined NO on the Prime Time nonsense. This has to be one of the worst ideas that have come forth from CCP in the 5 years I've been around. Why in the world would you want to DISCOURAGE alliances from recruiting contributing members from other timezones, and on the flip side why would any corp want to join an alliance where they wouldn't feel like they make a contribution just because they aren't in the right timezone? This is just blowing my mind, it's a huge detriment to the single shard universe concept.
Second, I do agree that nullsec needs a large overhaul, but I have a few problems. What you have laid out sounds over-simplified, childish and halfassed for lack of a better word. After reading the ideas, I am starting to wonder if any of you actually play the game or you just throw out ideas that might work without knowing what you are talking about. That being said, if we knew what was coming in the future we may not feel that way and you should lay out your vision better (I know it's a work in progress).
This much of a change should honestly be released as a true expansion, along with new content and ALL of the supporting elements such as a capital rebalance (which will obviously be needed) and the POS changes. Releasing one without the other would be like giving your child 1/3 of a bike and promising to build the next 1/3 at some point in the future, then you'd focus on the last third. Ya it's great having that first 1/3 as the child and thinking it's awesome, but it's a broken piece of crap without the rest of the vision.
So please consider just doing like an end-of-year true expansion with these MAJOR changes and adding new content. It would make more sense, and would allow more time for refinement and community input to make it truly good. This is huge, and will have very serious consequences if it is a complete piece of garbage.
http://www.militarygamers.com/
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
428
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:26:02 -
[1145] - Quote
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. ).
Same reason people fly in FW- PVP. It's surprising that so many people here just want to grind imaginary space kredits in a spaceship PVP game.
The whole point of sov is just to facilitate fights, to be a huge free for all arena. Current system has failed horribly in that, and since people have been living with the disastrous system for so long, they've forgotten what the game was all about.
|
Lister Vindaloo
5 Tons of Flax
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:26:41 -
[1146] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Lister Vindaloo wrote:There is no excuse for being able to use your 'prime time' window to exclude entire time zones from participating in alliance/corporation activities, it is simply a divisive, segregating mechanic that will disillusion entire groups from attempting to participate in sov warfare, it HAS to go, i dont know how to respond to anyone who supports it as it only reduces content rather than increase it There are only two fixes to the TZ problem. Turn sov into "turn-based" gameplay. That is basically what we have today. Timers go uncontested. Fleets are moved en-mass to overwhelmingly capture an objective. It's like playing civ.. you stack your units until you have overwhelming force to take a city, then move in at once and take it in an all-or-nothing move. Any competent defending player simply removes their units so as not to waste losses on an unwinnable defensive fight (defense fleet never shows up to defend timer). Or they amass sufficient defense that the attacker removes THEIR army and doesn't even bother on the attempt (attack fleet never shows up to finish timer). This is the state of things today. Or, sov can be real-time gameplay, requiring actual interaction with other humans flying other spaceships. Real-time interactions result in escalating fleet situations that aren't all-or-nothing predetermined outcomes. Unfortunately, CCP cannot fix the reality that real-time interactions can only happen between people that are online at roughly the same times without inventing time-travel. As a result, sov interactions will be gated by TZ by the laws of reality. Accept and adapt.
Exactly, let the TZ of the players decide when they can and cannot contest a timer, not an artificial mechanic that decides when a timer can even exist, let the laws of reality gate the tz's, not a CCP enforced mechanic. From what you have said there is still no purpose to declaring a prime time.... |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:30:05 -
[1147] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote: Will the Entosis cycle be affected by TIDI? ( I hope so otherwise Wyvern > Levi >Avatar > Aeon supremacy ) I feel like the 4 hour window is to short. (I would recommend 6) Can a Entosis module be used by a ship in Triage , Siege or Bastion? ( I hope not. ) Will sov cost reduce or increase with Indices? ( If not you are missing the boat ) 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. ) How does all the Risk of Living in Nullsec compare to the rewards of other safer areas in Eve? Supercapital Role ? Now let me play game designer if I may. I would use this system along with the Phoebe jump changes. With a few changes and additions. Entosis cycle would be affected by TIDI and would not be able to be activated by a ship in Bastion , Triage or Siege. Sov cost would have a base median value and indices would gain negative values. Meaning @ 0 use they would slowly dip towards negative indices values. The lower the negative value of indices the more expensive the sov bill. The higher the value of positive indices the cheaper the sov bill. Furthermore sovereignty owned by an alliance not connected to the main body of sov would have a premium charge ( a fixed % increase over base sov cost ). 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. Furthermore this makes attrition style warfare real. It also adds to the dynamics of living in nullsec. It answers the question of what do "off prime time players do"? Raiding and interfering with groups logistical and production efforts now has real and meaningful ramifications. Defending against those who would seek to raid also has important value. No longer are PVP'rs the end all be all of alliance members. In a nullsec where the chord to easy supply ( Jita) is severed productionist , logisticians , miners now have a important role in nullsec which leads to a more inclusive dynamic atmosphere in alliance culture. It's means empire bordering nullsec regions now have new and unique value that due to the Jump Freighter became unimportant years ago. Conversely deeper remote regions with great riches have unique value due to higher abundance of resources. This all adds to reasons for people in space doing things. Reasons for conquest reasons for defense.
The blog states that " Both the cycle time of the Entosis Link module and the actual capture process will be affected by time dilation."
As far as the "to triage or not to triage" question goes, the blog says: " Capital Ships would have restrictions for using these modules, most likely in the form of a role bonus that increases the cycle time by 400% (this means a 10 minute cycle time for a T2 Entosis Link on a capital ship)."
On that note, I think you might find your supercap role. This is just a gut feeling however, as I have never even sat in a cap. I find myself leaning back and forth on this as I read more comments.
As for the perks of living in null (indicies, rewards, sov costs) I really really hope this is next on CCP's list. I am very much for these changes but in order to make SOV null a meaningful experience there needs to be something other than "identity" at stake.
Those changes to the value of nullsec then make the planned full-nerf to JFs etc. viable and reasonable.
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:33:14 -
[1148] - Quote
These are not the changes you were looking for.
These changes favor massive numbers, and coalitions. Exactly the thing that you were trying to discourage. "Constellation geography" doesn't matter when you have enough numbers to hell-death-camp every system in that constellation, and more than enough isk to throw as many linky-thingies at it as it takes.
Your "sov holder vs. everyone" mechanic is pointless too. A coalition that can death-blob any attacker or defender trumps your mechanic.
Occupancy based sov should be occupancy based sov. If you live in the space, and control what happens there, you should gain an increasing claim to it over time. For someone to take it from you, they should have to want it more than you do, and likewise exercise day-to-day control, and/or keep you from doing so. That's the only way you give the advantage to the entity that actually wants the space. You don't need a contrived mini-game.
When you release this, there will be a rush of people reinforcing stuff, and then the numbers will roll in, and the pointlessness of it for any purpose other than griefing will become apparent.
One last thing. These mechanics make the role of capitals and super-capitals extremely limited. The risk of fielding them would in no way be justified. You've taken away most of their logistical reason for being. If you are going to make them far less relevant in sov warfare too, what do you expect their role to be, other than a material sink? |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:39:37 -
[1149] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:Hello CCP,
lotsa good stuff .
+1
But .. dear Manfred :-)
Once upon a time long ago someone explained to you the difference between CCP's prioritisation planning and resulting approaches for resource allocation. While your points are valid, you're missing something.
This second decade isn't about continuing on the same basis as the first. There's a distinct focus on making EVE The Product manageable, low maintenance and sustainably extensible for marketable content. Hence shorter release cycles, hence an increased approach of mechanical design, no more grand experiments, and no more feature sets high on iteration requirements. Just modular additions based on what fits with marketing research.
The Sov revamp is - among many other things and drama - the result of directives for the devs to pick suitable ideas and work them out within the constraints of the venture development roadmap.
To make a long story short: you are asking to approach matters on a basis of studying behaviour on a group level, while CCP is focused on mechanical design solutions. Everything else is marketing, from the Dominion style blurb of "it's extensible and plug & play peeps so we'll iterate till it's awesome) to the CSM channeling and timing of blog release - and so forth.
They've gotten smarter, and rightly so. But this does mean that you can't look at it from the perspective of players as currently, you'll have to approach it from CCP's product perspective first and foremost. What mechanical design feature will buffer retention for which category of player types and which mechanical design feature sets are uniquely qualified as marketable material for sales.
CCP on a dev level asks good questions, they do good research, but while they model individual behavioural options they do so based on data acquisition and analysis. There's no shrink checking things, and the emergent gameplay elements have proven themselves to be too risky to allow any room for loopholes. So, mechanical design it is, dumb it down, make it easy to swallow - and wait long enough until people are ready to embrace just about anything as long as it is different than what they've got now.
Think of it as Sov as DTF/ETF (Dominate The Flag / Extort The Flag) along the lines of a hybrid Incursion / Faction Warfare variant for nullsec. There will be further phases, but there the same approach is required and applies.
I'm not saying it's a bad design or approach. That depends entirely on CCP's commercial and venture goals, the resources they allocate for *that* roadmap and how that translates into guidelines and resources for the actual dev work - where there's little to no clue about the venture development any more.
But it does mean you need to approach it and feedback on it differently. Tiny bites that sell and which are low enough on resource allocation requirements that they can be swallowed. Everything else is part of CCP's roadmap, and nobody has any influence on that anymore.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
172
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:40:29 -
[1150] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote: Will the Entosis cycle be affected by TIDI? ( I hope so otherwise Wyvern > Levi >Avatar > Aeon supremacy ) There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment. These two points seem clear, from the dev blogs:
1. TiDI = yes "Both the cycle time of the Entosis Link module and the actual capture process will be affected by time dilation."
2. Battleship position on the graph: one can draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The graph headline was "graph of PVP damage by class" - that implied all PVP damage, everywhere. Therefore its legit to say the figure could be biased in favor of BS damage during SOV grinds, pos & poco bashes - everywhere. Rise's point is that the BS class is getting used and applying lots of damage during the graph period, but for many players, the way they are used (structure grinding), or the fact that their group does not use them or see them around for various reasons, is more important.
|
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1798
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:43:46 -
[1151] - Quote
Why not allow the first attack to occur any time but the reinforce end during the prime time?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:46:23 -
[1152] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote: Will the Entosis cycle be affected by TIDI? ( I hope so otherwise Wyvern > Levi >Avatar > Aeon supremacy ) There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment. These two points seem clear, from the dev blogs: 1. TiDI = yes "Both the cycle time of the Entosis Link module and the actual capture process will be affected by time dilation." 2. Battleship position on the graph: one can draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The graph headline was "graph of PVP damage by class" - that implied all PVP damage, everywhere. Therefore its legit to say the figure could be biased in favor of BS damage during SOV grinds, pos & poco bashes - everywhere. Rise's point is that the BS class is getting used and applying lots of damage during the graph period, but for many players, the way they are used (structure grinding), or the fact that their group does not use them or see them around for various reasons, is more important.
Manny is referring to this "fixed" chart http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
The graph released by CCP seperates HACs, Cruisers, and T3s. I think that's pretty clearly erroneous |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:47:51 -
[1153] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Why not allow the first attack to occur any time but the reinforce end during the prime time?
This could work |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
92
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:48:38 -
[1154] - Quote
okay so after some thought, cool down and think time I have some questions which I think would be good to know the answer to and are pertinent to the sov system at play.
So for each structure TCU, IHUB, Station, the entosis module initially reinforce it after x time as is my understanding. After ~48 hours structure comes out of reinforced and command nodes spawn across the constellation. You must take 10 command nodes in order to secure your claim or destroy the structure ./ control the station/ freeport the station. Command nodes are taken by using the entosis module for x amount of time.
1. if 2 systems are in reinforced and come out of reinforced within say 2 hours of each other its entirely possible that the command node fight form the first will still be going on when the command nodes for the second spawn. How will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the different systems ihubs/stations? Also since you are de-linking station control from ihub control how will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the station and those for the ihub in a given system if they are spread out across the constellation?
You may ask why is this important, well, as an FC, i may decide that the station is my priority target to save because it is my staging system or tactically important, or vice versa i may decide the ihub is more important because of the upgrades installed, it would seem i need to differentiate between these objectives, else we could be tug of warring on the same system or different systems accidentally. Basically i want you to enable fc's and skymarshals to be able to make intelligent decisions about deciding which objectives are important.
2. Constellations are typically composed of 6-9 systems, it had become pretty standard in sov warfare to renforce multiple systems at once, and under the new system this would be easier than ever before, if all systems are renforced int eh same day, they would presumably all exit on the same day in the same 4 hour period, each spawning 10 objectives to take or defend, in the same constellation. so we are potentially talking about 60-90 command nodes in the same constellation, this seems EXTREMLY chaotic, to the point of there being a tactical disadvantage of an organized fleet(s). It also means that defense or offense can turn into an extremely long evening, with fights between even 2 alliances being required to go 6+ hours just to capture all the nodes. Is this really what you want reflected in the new system?
Main concerns here is that while i think midsized fights are the best part of eve mid beign 50-250 per side, this could very easily devolve sov warfare into 10 man skirmishes, which I think takes something away from the game, alot of us in nullsec enjoy a good fight with a midsized fleet, and while small gang plays a role an is important this system could easily overemphasize it. Also main concern is time duration of defense/offense, if you consider 2-3 constellations could be in contention at once then holy jesus there is jsut no way to organize this. I dont see a good way to rectify this other than to create a hard cap on the number of structures in one constellation hat can be in ref and hard caps are bad in a sandbox.
3. Strategic index ihub size, upgrades. With a single timer system deciding the fate of ihubs the time you must hold space to gain the ability to use strategic upgrade seems far to long, a rebalanace on how long it take to get beacons, Jb,s, and cyno jamming would seem to be a necessity with this system. Additionally since ihubs may need to be replaced mroe often the 1 hour anchor and 1 hor online also seem to long, maybe 15 minutes -30 minutes a piece would be more balanced, als what prevents the lsoer of a command node battle form using ihub spam to get there ihub down before the attacker? before it was the long TCU online timer ./ SBU presence in system. ninja dropping ihubs seems like it could be a potential path to victory as the system is currently proposed.
4. Timers, 1 timer of 48 hours seems suboptimal, 2 timers of 24 hours would be better in some respects, allow us to make strategic choices in which systems we defend, with a full constellation in renforced which would seem like the way to go, this could shorten wars to weeks instead of months, long wars are good short wars are bad. Addtitionally with the current proposed station freeport mode for second timer you are removing any and all incentive for alliance to stage in conquerable nullsec, msot will likely choose to use adjacent NPC as it is just to risky to keep your alliance military cache in a station essentially conquered in one timer.
Thats all I ahve for now, hopefulyl worthy of some feedback.
|
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
189
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:53:06 -
[1155] - Quote
Domination through aggressive flashing of lights? Well, at least it's something new and not just another structure grind.
That said, this idea seems to need some additional work for the reasons said earlier in the thread such as the reinforcement timers.
This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
399
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:54:28 -
[1156] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now. CCP made it fairly clear that the idea is that you should have military control over the grid before you activate the module. So according to their plan in the situation that you put forth here they feel that you should not be using the entosis module anyway.
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
92
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:56:12 -
[1157] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now. CCP made it fairly clear that the idea is that you should have military control over the grid before you activate the module. So according to their plan in the situation that you put forth here they feel that you should not be using the entosis module anyway.
1 bobm run later or sniping t3, you ahe to start all over and you have to do it x10 to win, seems pretty meh |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
299
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:58:00 -
[1158] - Quote
Intriguing changes.
I will be looking forward into how this will turn out. From one side the proposed system seems to favor "harassment" capability of low-sec-pirate like entities like, for example, Mordus Angels from the other hand, the defenders ability to point a 4h "vulnerability" window and predictability of the reinforcement system plus inability to remote rep link guy allows still a numerical advantage of one side to be meaningful.
I mean, obviously if, for example, Goons do not respond to MOA timer creation MOA could in theory easily flip a number of systems around its pocket, however, actually holding of these systems would be entirely different thing as once the system is flipped nothing prevents Goons from applying the same kind of "lol lets create a timer".
Probably after a little while the traditional null sec entities would get also individually competent at small scale pvp (unlike currently where most of them are only good at pressing F1 in 100+ group) and it would be a bit more risky to go generating timers as there would be actually people willing to engage you instead of sitting on their thumb for 2h waiting for a FC to come online.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:00:04 -
[1159] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote: 1. if 2 systems are in reinforced and come out of reinforced within say 2 hours of each other its entirely possible that the command node fight form the first will still be going on when the command nodes for the second spawn. How will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the different systems ihubs/stations? Also since you are de-linking station control from ihub control how will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the station and those for the ihub in a given system if they are spread out across the constellation?
" These Nodes have an equal chance to appear in any system in the constellation, regardless of who owns the Sovereignty in the other systems.
These Command Nodes will be visible through the anomaly scanner, sensor overlay and overview, and will be clearly named after the structure that they apply to."
TLDR it will be very easy to determine what nodes apply to what structures. |
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
266
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:01:12 -
[1160] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote: 1. if 2 systems are in reinforced and come out of reinforced within say 2 hours of each other its entirely possible that the command node fight form the first will still be going on when the command nodes for the second spawn. How will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the different systems ihubs/stations? Also since you are de-linking station control from ihub control how will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the station and those for the ihub in a given system if they are spread out across the constellation?
Dev Blog says by name. I imaginge they will be called HED-GP iHub Defense Node or something like that. So you can prioritize certain objectives. => more tactical options.
Vigilanta wrote: so we are potentially talking about 60-90 command nodes in the same constellation, this seems EXTREMLY chaotic, to the point of there being a tactical disadvantage of an organized fleet(s). It also means that defense or offense can turn into an extremely long evening, with fights between even 2 alliances being required to go 6+ hours just to capture all the nodes. Is this really what you want reflected in the new system?
Main concerns here is that while i think midsized fights are the best part of eve mid beign 50-250 per side, this could very easily devolve sov warfare into 10 man skirmishes, which I think takes something away from the game, alot of us in nullsec enjoy a good fight with a midsized fleet, and while small gang plays a role an is important this system could easily overemphasize it. Also main concern is time duration of defense/offense, if you consider 2-3 constellations could be in contention at once then holy jesus there is jsut no way to organize this. I dont see a good way to rectify this other than to create a hard cap on the number of structures in one constellation hat can be in ref and hard caps are bad in a sandbox.
The new system MAY mean that all alliances have to shift a bit of their tactical intelligence from their few FCs to their hundreds of F1 drones. I personally think that this might not be a bad thing. ;-)
Vigilanta wrote: 4. Timers, 1 timer of 48 hours seems suboptimal, 2 timers of 24 hours would be better in some respects, allow us to make strategic choices in which systems we defend, with a full constellation in renforced which would seem like the way to go, this could shorten wars to weeks instead of months, long wars are good short wars are bad. Addtitionally with the current proposed station freeport mode for second timer you are removing any and all incentive for alliance to stage in conquerable nullsec, msot will likely choose to use adjacent NPC as it is just to risky to keep your alliance military cache in a station essentially conquered in one timer.
Why, the station still has 2 timers?
|
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
92
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:01:46 -
[1161] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Vigilanta wrote: 1. if 2 systems are in reinforced and come out of reinforced within say 2 hours of each other its entirely possible that the command node fight form the first will still be going on when the command nodes for the second spawn. How will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the different systems ihubs/stations? Also since you are de-linking station control from ihub control how will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the station and those for the ihub in a given system if they are spread out across the constellation?
" These Nodes have an equal chance to appear in any system in the constellation, regardless of who owns the Sovereignty in the other systems. These Command Nodes will be visible through the anomaly scanner, sensor overlay and overview, and will be clearly named after the structure that they apply to." TLDR it will be very easy to determine what nodes apply to what structures.
Ah i missed that, such a long devblog :P, nice catch and good to know
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:05:29 -
[1162] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now. CCP made it fairly clear that the idea is that you should have military control over the grid before you activate the module. So according to their plan in the situation that you put forth here they feel that you should not be using the entosis module anyway. 1 bobm run later or sniping t3, you ahe to start all over and you have to do it x10 to win, seems pretty meh
I feel like the use of the phrase "the capture progress will be paused" hints towards a sliding scale system where any "work done" by an attacker could be easily "undone" by a defender after pushing off the attacker. AKA the progress would be "saved" until the structure was either captured or reset to normal. I expect this to have a gradual decay that might start after a number of hours but thats speculation on my part. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:06:16 -
[1163] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Vigilanta wrote: 1. if 2 systems are in reinforced and come out of reinforced within say 2 hours of each other its entirely possible that the command node fight form the first will still be going on when the command nodes for the second spawn. How will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the different systems ihubs/stations? Also since you are de-linking station control from ihub control how will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the station and those for the ihub in a given system if they are spread out across the constellation?
" These Nodes have an equal chance to appear in any system in the constellation, regardless of who owns the Sovereignty in the other systems. These Command Nodes will be visible through the anomaly scanner, sensor overlay and overview, and will be clearly named after the structure that they apply to." TLDR it will be very easy to determine what nodes apply to what structures. Ah i missed that, such a long devblog :P, nice catch and good to know no worries :) |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
520
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:09:45 -
[1164] - Quote
Since space will now be a chore to hang onto, and no real benefits of owning have been outlined, how about toning down the space aids and allow supers to dock. Maybe add a special station service for player owned stations only. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
92
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:12:25 -
[1165] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:Vigilanta wrote:
The new system MAY mean that all alliances have to shift a bit of their tactical intelligence from their few FCs to their hundreds of F1 drones. I personally think that this might not be a bad thing. ;-)
[quote=Vigilanta] 4. Timers, 1 timer of 48 hours seems suboptimal, 2 timers of 24 hours would be better in some respects, allow us to make strategic choices in which systems we defend, with a full constellation in renforced which would seem like the way to go, this could shorten wars to weeks instead of months, long wars are good short wars are bad. Addtitionally with the current proposed station freeport mode for second timer you are removing any and all incentive for alliance to stage in conquerable nullsec, msot will likely choose to use adjacent NPC as it is just to risky to keep your alliance military cache in a station essentially conquered in one timer.
Why, the station still has 2 timers?
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. 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.
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.
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
92
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:14:23 -
[1166] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Vigilanta wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now. CCP made it fairly clear that the idea is that you should have military control over the grid before you activate the module. So according to their plan in the situation that you put forth here they feel that you should not be using the entosis module anyway. 1 bobm run later or sniping t3, you ahe to start all over and you have to do it x10 to win, seems pretty meh I feel like the use of the phrase "the capture progress will be paused" hints towards a sliding scale system where any "work done" by an attacker could be easily "undone" by a defender after pushing off the attacker. AKA the progress would be "saved" until the structure was either captured or reset to normal. I expect this to have a gradual decay that might start after a number of hours but thats speculation on my part.
Your probably correct, which would be the way to go, but that said, its not actually stated, seems like an important part of the mechanics to have fleshed out when proposing a system. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:16:25 -
[1167] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Vigilanta wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now. CCP made it fairly clear that the idea is that you should have military control over the grid before you activate the module. So according to their plan in the situation that you put forth here they feel that you should not be using the entosis module anyway. 1 bobm run later or sniping t3, you ahe to start all over and you have to do it x10 to win, seems pretty meh I feel like the use of the phrase "the capture progress will be paused" hints towards a sliding scale system where any "work done" by an attacker could be easily "undone" by a defender after pushing off the attacker. AKA the progress would be "saved" until the structure was either captured or reset to normal. I expect this to have a gradual decay that might start after a number of hours but thats speculation on my part. Your probably correct, which would be the way to go, but that said, its not actually stated, seems like an important part of the mechanics to have fleshed out when proposing a system. You do see the metric **** ton of "OH MY GOD EVE IS DEAD" on this thread already right? CCP left parts out on purpose ;) These nerds will calm down and accept their fate just like with Phoebe and we will rejoice |
Kiokiba Eriker
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:19:49 -
[1168] - Quote
I like these changes. As a member of a sov holding alliance I feel like this will make null a much more active place, with lots more fights and skirmishes. I welcome the idea of the station becoming "freeport" for a while to allow attacking parties to stage. Making it so wrecking ball fleets can't smash through entire regions in days and making the act of capturing a star system much more of a tug-of-war effort, spanning constellations, is a wonderful idea in my book. Can't wait to see all the chaos that erupts from these changes. :D |
Le Mittani
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:20:49 -
[1169] - Quote
Last time I saw this many crying goons in one thread was right before drone assist got nerfed. At least one thing never changes |
Drechlas
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:22:23 -
[1170] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote: I feel like the 4 hour window is to short. (I would recommend 6)
Why not make the vulnerability slot dependent on the size of the defending alliance? We want smaller parties to have a stake in null and doing their thing. To make the place more vibrant and bustling with activity. Smaller entities should have a smaller vulnerability slot than larger entities imo.
Manfred Sideous wrote: Besides the name on the map why would anyone choose to move to nullsec? ( Incursions , level 5's already offer more isk per hour than nullsec.
I just read this as nerf incursions and rightly so, CCP is always aiming for risk vs reward as such any high sec activity may not yield as much as a reward as the low or null sec variant of said activity.
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.
In order to pull this off, null sec will need a serious injection of industry minded people. Current high sec industrialists will need a good incentive to move to null and the main way to do it is by upholding the holy rule "Risk vs Reward" since producing and mining in high sec is relatively risk free, the yields should be lower than mining in low/null sec. I'm naming mining now but the same should apply over the complete industrial palette.
Manfred Sideous wrote: In a nullsec where the chord to easy supply ( Jita) is severed productionist , logisticians , miners now have a important role in nullsec which leads to a more inclusive dynamic atmosphere in alliance culture.
Conversely deeper remote regions with great riches have unique value due to higher abundance of resources. This all adds to reasons for people in space doing things. Reasons for conquest reasons for defense.
You are correct that your approach would sever Jita ties, but the only thing it really would accomplish imo is that you'll see jita becoming a gathering place of marketeers stocking 'safe' border stations like Torrinos. Big alliances will just use neutral haulers to move the goods as close as they can to those places and make sure that their main staging point is in jump range from such stations (or max 2 jumps out).
I'm not in the loop whether the higher abundance of resources and great riches are really located in deeper/remote regions
Manfred Sideous wrote: @CCP an word of caution. I see CCP using metrics with a degree of ambiguity to re enforce a pre-conceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. A example of this was the recent blog over the Ishtar nerf. There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment. In reality however this could not be further from truth. So please rethink some of these metrics with graphs because always the devil is in the details.
I couldn't agree more. We all know that CCP employs statisticians to run some number **** for Eve Fanfest each year. So surely they must be aware that with statistics and graphs you can prove any point of view on the data. In the presented case the statistics were used to prove your own point instead of reality. |
|
Circumstantial Evidence
172
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:23:57 -
[1171] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:2. Battleship position on the graph: one can draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The graph headline was "graph of PVP damage by class" - that implied all PVP damage, everywhere. Therefore its legit to say the figure could be biased in favor of BS damage during SOV grinds, pos & poco bashes - everywhere. Rise's point is that the BS class is getting used and applying lots of damage during the graph period, but for many players, the way they are used (structure grinding), or the fact that their group does not use them or see them around for various reasons, is more important.
Manny is referring to this "fixed" chart http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png The graph released by CCP seperates HACs, Cruisers, and T3s. I think that's pretty clearly erroneous Ok, thanks - I think I get it. The "fixed" graph stacks all the more popular ships that can actually move, and shows they are all together doing about 5 times more damage than BS class, which has fewer ships in it. Perhaps CCP can be accused of a little bit of sweeping under the rug in plain sight, but I can ask questions about the stacked graph. (Though I'm very late to that party.) It demotes battleships to the second most popular size class by applied damage.... would any number of people complain if they were removed entirely? (Slight sarcasm there.) Is there a similar graph, from prior to the warp speed changes? What is a healthy metric for battleships? Doing maybe half of the combined damage of those three groups of cruiser size hulls - two of which can be set up to be... very damaging? |
Le Mittani
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:24:02 -
[1172] - Quote
Correction, it was actually in that thread on their theory crafting forums where they attempted to create a sa matra proof afk ratting fit. |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1081
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:30:26 -
[1173] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:2. Battleship position on the graph: one can draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The graph headline was "graph of PVP damage by class" - that implied all PVP damage, everywhere. Therefore its legit to say the figure could be biased in favor of BS damage during SOV grinds, pos & poco bashes - everywhere. Rise's point is that the BS class is getting used and applying lots of damage during the graph period, but for many players, the way they are used (structure grinding), or the fact that their group does not use them or see them around for various reasons, is more important.
Manny is referring to this "fixed" chart http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png The graph released by CCP seperates HACs, Cruisers, and T3s. I think that's pretty clearly erroneous Ok, thanks - I think I get it. The "fixed" graph stacks all the more popular ships that can actually move, and shows they are all together doing about 5 times more damage than BS class, which has fewer ships in it. Perhaps CCP can be accused of a little bit of sweeping under the rug in plain sight, but I can ask questions about the stacked graph. (Though I'm very late to that party.) It demotes battleships to the second most popular size class by applied damage.... would any number of people complain if they were removed entirely? (Slight sarcasm there.) Is there a similar graph, from prior to the warp speed changes? What is a healthy metric for battleships? Doing maybe half of the combined damage of those three groups of cruiser size hulls - two of which can be set up to be... very damaging?
As a FC who leads fleet fights regularly I can promise you the Battleship is well under represented in null sec PVP. Shield BS even more so. My alliance are one of the few making a BS doctrine work and it's a razor tight line we walk to be able to use them.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:31:37 -
[1174] - Quote
Drechlas wrote: I couldn't agree more. We all know that CCP employs statisticians to run some numberporn for Eve Fanfest each year. So surely they must be aware that with statistics and graphs you can prove any point of view on the data. In the presented case the statistics were used to prove your own point instead of reality.
Look at CCP's chart http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png
Now look at a "fixed chart" where actual cruisers (i.e. HACs and T3s are stacked together) and you get something looking like this http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
Now imagine the Marauder and Black Ops parts stacked on top of the Battleship line if that makes you feel better. But when you do that, to be fair, you should stack HICs, Force Recons, Logi, and Combat recons on top of the already HUGE cruiser bar. Then you get an idea of why everyone laughed at CCP's graph. The cruiser class of ships is the only thing anyone uses in EVE, followed by frigates. Look at the graph. It's not an exaggeration. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:34:26 -
[1175] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:2. Battleship position on the graph: one can draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The graph headline was "graph of PVP damage by class" - that implied all PVP damage, everywhere. Therefore its legit to say the figure could be biased in favor of BS damage during SOV grinds, pos & poco bashes - everywhere. Rise's point is that the BS class is getting used and applying lots of damage during the graph period, but for many players, the way they are used (structure grinding), or the fact that their group does not use them or see them around for various reasons, is more important.
Manny is referring to this "fixed" chart http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png The graph released by CCP seperates HACs, Cruisers, and T3s. I think that's pretty clearly erroneous Ok, thanks - I think I get it. The "fixed" graph stacks all the more popular ships that can actually move, and shows they are all together doing about 5 times more damage than BS class, which has fewer ships in it. Perhaps CCP can be accused of a little bit of sweeping under the rug in plain sight, but I can ask questions about the stacked graph. (Though I'm very late to that party.) It demotes battleships to the second most popular size class by applied damage.... would any number of people complain if they were removed entirely? (Slight sarcasm there.) Is there a similar graph, from prior to the warp speed changes? What is a healthy metric for battleships? Doing maybe half of the combined damage of those three groups of cruiser size hulls - two of which can be set up to be... very damaging? It only demoted battleships to second because nobody bothered to show that even frigate hulls outdamage battleship hulls in terms of usage. Stack frigs, bombers, ceptors, and AFs too. Battleship hulls are a joke in EVE's meta right now. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
299
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:41:00 -
[1176] - Quote
YanniMorePlz wrote:Just a slight 'concern' that I felt might be worth pointing out. I will quote from the blog: Quote:The occupancy defense bonuses for all of these structures lock while they are reinforced and will not be affected by changes in indices over the two days of reinforcement. Much like defensive SBUing, I feel there is potential for a defender to use an alt/spy to intentionally reinforce in order to freeze the index of a system in order to retain it's defensive bonuses. One might do this if let's say, renters have recently fled the area, and the defender does not want to lose their bonuses while being unable or unwilling to invest time to grind them back up. A easy solution would be to have the index drop after the "lock" period from any inactivity that occurred during the lock. Just something worth bringing up, it's small and I don't think it impacts anything in a major way. Overall great blog! Unlike defensive SBU'ing you cant flip the switch, however, if someone takes advantage of the vulnerability. Once the RF timer ends the command nodes exist also outside the 4h time window, so someone would come in some low activity timezone and would just flip them in less than hour while the defender is sleeping.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:41:52 -
[1177] - Quote
Drechlas wrote:Why not make the vulnerability slot dependent on the size of the defending alliance? We want smaller parties to have a stake in null and doing their thing. To make the place more vibrant and bustling with activity. Smaller entities should have a smaller vulnerability slot than larger entities imo. That's exploitable. I can have the station etc held by an alliance with 10 people or less in it, which obviously isn't desirable.
Drechlas wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote: Besides the name on the map why would anyone choose to move to nullsec? ( Incursions , level 5's already offer more isk per hour than nullsec. I just read this as nerf incursions and rightly so, CCP is always aiming for risk vs reward as such any high sec activity may not yield as much as a reward as the low or null sec variant of said activity. This can be dealt with by buffing something else, then increasing taxes for building stuff etc, for example.
Drechlas wrote:In order to pull this off, null sec will need a serious injection of industry minded people. Current high sec industrialists will need a good incentive to move to null and the main way to do it is by upholding the holy rule "Risk vs Reward" since producing and mining in high sec is relatively risk free, the yields should be lower than mining in low/null sec. I'm naming mining now but the same should apply over the complete industrial palette. This is definitely something which is required, and hopefully this'll be a part of phase 3 of the nullsec revamp. I'm not sure how they'll do it and not make hisec a content desert, but they'll still have to tackle it soon, and well.
However, I'm cautiously optimistic they'll actually do that, as long as they don't do too much of the following:
Manfred Sideous wrote: @CCP an word of caution. I see CCP using metrics with a degree of ambiguity to re enforce a pre-conceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. A example of this was the recent blog over the Ishtar nerf. There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment. In reality however this could not be further from truth. So please rethink some of these metrics with graphs because always the devil is in the details.
Agreed. I would be surprised if a lot of the "increased nullsec population" shown in the blogs wasn't also in part due to industrialists etc actually moving out to nullsec after phoebe made manufacturing not suck the fat one compared to hisec.
And the BS vs cruisers thing has been pointed out multiple times as a lie by statistics-massaging, where if you put up all the cruiser-sized hulls it would dwarf BS-sized hulls in usage (and I'm wondering how many of those hulls would be left if even hulls used while ratting were taken out of the equation). |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
130
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:41:59 -
[1178] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:@CCP an word of caution. I see CCP using metrics with a degree of ambiguity to re enforce a pre-conceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. A example of this was the recent blog over the Ishtar nerf. There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment. In reality however this could not be further from truth. So please rethink some of these metrics with graphs because always the devil is in the details. Same for sentry carriers.
|
Callduron
Corporate Scum Brave Collective
616
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:47:29 -
[1179] - Quote
CCP Fozzie's latest dev blogs are epic attempts to address the problem of stagnation in nullsec, what Crowfall calls "the Uncle Bob issue."
"[By year 10] Bob is now an unassailable tyrant and anyone who even tries to challenge him is crushed instantly. Nobody's having fun, not even Uncle Bob. A strategy game inherently has to have the chance to restart."
Is Null Sec at the stage of "unassailable tyrants?"
I think so. It's true that people coming into null sec are not always crushed instantly but that's because the big boys allow them to come in then farm them for pvp. Space is now 2 dominant factions: the CFC and N3/PL. There's also the Russians - traditionally left to do their own thing - and independent entities permitted to exist for farming. Gevlon went as far as to describe BRAVE as renters who pay rent in ship losses rather than isk.
Renters dominate nullsec. Even if we don't consider alternate arrangements which are renter-like - paying rent in ship losses or paplinks - a quick look at Dotlan shows the absolute dominance of renters in nullsec. The biggest sov holder is N3's renter alliance, next is xDeathx's renter alliance gifted to them by PL, then 2 real player alliances then 5th is PL's renter alliance and 6th is the Goons' renter alliance. Even analysed by population, renters make up 4 of the 7 biggest alliances in the game.
Renting is emergent gameplay a system where players manage a conflict driven high reward space by avoiding conflict, paying stronger people to do the conflict for them. This will become more or less impossible under the new Sov system. Sov structures will be continually tested by anyone who can reach them. The role of wormholes in accessing remote parts of null is not insignificant post-Phoebe either.
I'm in favour of seeing a sharp decline in renting. I think it tends to create boring space, where people mine or multibox in safety and seclusion rarely seeing a hostile. As an FC I consider most such space not really worth attacking because they'll just pos up and it's not like we can do anything to threaten the sov. Interceptor gangs targeting inattentive ratters are the only effective counter-measure and that's gnat bites in the overall scheme of things.
But what will happen to an Eve where most null sec residents have decided not to pvp, just to grind their next super in safe zones?
Well there will be some quite sharp economic effects.
We will see more ship destruction, a lot of destruction of sov structures, people spending time fighting instead of ratting and mining and people hiding in poses or stations when they could have been ratting or mining.
This means the economy will see less isk and less ore as well as a marginal reduction in ESS-related loyalty points. It probably won't effect nullsec exploration much as that's fairly safe. We may see less moon goo production and reaction as people feel less safe about erecting moon miner POSes. We may see less PI production as people are forced out of their space.
A big decline in the production of isk would lead to less money chasing the same goods, ie inflation. So all goods will be likely to become more expensive and particularly nullsec ores and their derivatives like Megacyte.
Loyalty point items, exploration loot and wormhole-exclusive materials will likely become cheaper, the latter being particularly true in view of the upcoming rebalance of T3 strategic cruisers (likely to be a nerf).
Will Eve be a better game? I think so. Conflicts abounding more reward for the people who manage nullsec successfully.
Will the Uncle Bob problem be solved? That seems less clear. If a big boy comes to a small sov holder and says "give us 20 billion or we'll wreck you" they will be likely to be able to extort money. So it will still be like renting except without the flagging. There is an out though - if someone becomes sufficiently bitter they can drop sov then spend all their time making their oppressors lives hell from NPC space.
What may solve the Uncle Bob problem and what shouldn't be forgotten is that there is still the prospect of a whole new type of space coming when the massive player-made stargates project is finished. So someone feeling oppressed by CFC and N3/PL would be able to move to what is pretty much a whole other game zone and forget them. That will be the real test of the sov revamp - whether the sov fixes keep players wanting to stay under the yoke of the blue doughnut when a viable alternative opens up.
So here's my prediction: the sov changes will make for exciting times in the short term but will ultimately fail to shake up nullsec and as soon as a new zone opens up on the other side of the player made gates all the farmable people will emigrate leaving a bitter bitter core of veterans sitting in their supers blaming CCP.
Is anyone remembering Trammel?
(originally posted on Stabbed Up http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/nullsec-must-burn.html)
I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/
I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
|
Lickem Lolly
Achura Solutions
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:53:32 -
[1180] - Quote
Welcome to Griefing Online!
I've read the blog a few times and tried very hard to find something positive, but I just don't see it. As someone who has lived in nullsec in small and large alliances, I can tell you this will be horrible.
Major problems:
1) Griefers in interceptors will be pinging our SOV for giggles 24/7 2) Cloaky campers will be perma-camping to keep indexes low 3) Capitals have no purpose anymore. With no more long-term goals, why will people bother playing eve? 4) Prime Time is a horrible idea. If you are not in US or EU prime, you will never be able to join any fun sov battles. 5) As mentioned a few hundred times already, there are no benefits to holding sov, so you will see most of nullsec empty.
This new concept was created by someone who either does not play eve at all or someone who hates large alliances and coalitions. Sorry, but I have news for you... Your salary is paid by large alliances and coalitions. This is the purpose of nullsec. You are shooting yourself in the face if you ruin this.
Also, you are completely missing the real problem with Eve - Highsec. I also run a highsec recruiting corp and can tell you from years of experience, highsec is broken. Attracting and keeping new players is the real problem in eve. 90% of our new members quit in the first month, due to highsec ganking and extremely boring content.
Congratulations. You should update your CV asap... |
|
Glasgow Dunlop
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
257
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:54:35 -
[1181] - Quote
as a wormholer, 2 words :
'accidental sov'
* grabs a popcorn making machine *
@glasgowdunlop #tweetfleet
TDSIN Recruitment Director : Join 'TDSIN pub'
Glasgow Meet Organiser
|
Doctor Fabulous MD
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:56:56 -
[1182] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote: Show me the inty fit that locks at 250. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and tank a sniper Muninn. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and outrun a speed fit PVP inty/pirate frig.
this thing locks at 250 in sniper mode while going 7km/s , and it locks at 175 in speed mode, while going 11km/s (9kms if you dont use snakes+quafe zero) and will speedtank any sniper fit in the game at that speed and range.
http://i.imgur.com/t29IKHD.png (yes thats a whole 3 dps at 175km)
sniper fits are setup for 100% max tracking, with the smallest guns that will reach optimally at that range + appropriate ammo, hence their lack of targeting range in that graph. If you can find me a fit that tracks anywhere even close to well ill be shocked.
It also goes too fast to probe down, and can do the cloak mwd trick so hard its 30km out of a bubble before the MWD stops cycling, so its pretty much uncatchable at gates.
Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
918
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:58:18 -
[1183] - Quote
I'd just like to pop in to say that when changes force entities who are notoriously neutral in their alignment and allegiance (snuffbox, Tri.) to blob up you have a winner system. |
Drechlas
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:01:57 -
[1184] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote: That's exploitable. I can have the station etc held by an alliance with 10 people or less in it, which obviously isn't desirable.
Yes and no, an alliance of 10 can't defend more than 10 positions which means 5 systems. All the others can be attacked and as such it isn't a feasible exploit
Lord TGR wrote: This can be dealt with by buffing something else, then increasing taxes for building stuff etc, for example.
True, in general most people tend to think in "nerf one" rather than "buff all other". Either way it needs to be dealt with. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:02:17 -
[1185] - Quote
Lickem Lolly wrote:Welcome to Griefing Online!
I've read the blog a few times and tried very hard to find something positive, but I just don't see it. As someone who has lived in nullsec in small and large alliances, I can tell you this will be horrible.
Major problems:
1) Griefers in interceptors will be pinging our SOV for giggles 24/7
From the original dev blog: " Build costs of approximately 20 million isk for Tech One, and approximately 80 million isk for Tech Two."
I expect CCP to raise this slightly or even dramatically but even if they don't. PLEASE hurl, literally hurl, as many 100M interceptors... as fast as you can, no, actually, faster, oh my god I can't wait just patch Tranquility now... into the waiting and loving arms of literally dozens of different configurations of sniper fit Attack BCs, HACs, and even other ceptors designed to run your ass down. My god I can't wait for those killmails to start rolling in.
TLDR: STOP HYPERBOLIZING ABOUT FRIGATES |
sytaqe violacea
Circus of midnight Vox Populi.
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:03:57 -
[1186] - Quote
"Prime Time" mechanism will be painful for AUTZ player. For USTZ player, attacking in EU/RUS prime hours is not so difficult, just log in weekend noon and attack EU/RUS TZ player. Attacking AUTZ is bit difficult because AUTZ prime hours are in morning for USTZ, but not so serious. However, for AUTZ player, attacking in any other TZs is painful, IIRC RUS/EU/US prime hours are located in AM1~10 of our TZ. It means AUTZ player are shut out of the most of sov warfare. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:06:43 -
[1187] - Quote
I have some questions and concerns now that I have had time to (hopefully) process it all:
- If certain ships types would prove to be simply too powerful at utilizing the Entosis Link; would CCP be willing to restrict it completely from a ship? You say capital ships will have the time increased to 400%, but for some groups it could mean a guaranteed win.
- Would not allowing certain modules to be fit if the Entosis Link is also fit? No cynos or cloaks as an example. Sure there is a sandbox game, but even a sandbox has walls.
- Structure notifications are a crutch that enable AFK empire type game play and allow groups to embrace the coalition lifestyle. If such a notification system is available for this new sov system, it will undermine the point of this sov revamp. Low fuel notifications are fine, but sending out notifications within seconds of someone shooting a structure (POS) or activating the Entosis Link is simply counter productive to the point of occupancy based sov. If the group who owns a POS, sov or station are in fact active in those systems, it will be easy to know if something is happening. It is the groups who take road trips to the other side of the map, travel long distances to assist a coalition members that greatly benefit from notifications. While I don't mind people having friends; I don't see the healthy game play value in being able to heavily assist random blues on the other side of the game.
- When activating the Entosis Link, does it stay on until the cycle is complete or can one deactivate it at any time in order to receive assistance and or dock/jump gate?
- Also on the subject of notifications and AFK empires; is there plans to keep the API from informing groups that their abandoned castles are being invaded if they choose not to use the space the castle sits in? You introduced the mobile siphon to help combat such behavior when it comes to large blocs consuming all the good moons across the game - yet dropped the ball big time because the API notifies within an hour if a mobile siphon is on the POS. Despite you saying the API would not allow it, players have figured out that adding a 3rd silo to the POS allows the API to provide the information needed for groups to continue their AFK moon printing presses negating any impact the mobile siphon can have. And speaking of such; what is taking so long in fixing this exploit? It has been well over a year.
- There is some concerns about alliances splintering into several alliances based around time zones in order to game the system. I'm sure you have thought about this, and could you list the pros and cons of trying such a tactic. Even touch on these crazy speed and range frigates other players are saying will become the #1 sov harassing doctrine.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:15:57 -
[1188] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote: Show me the inty fit that locks at 250. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and tank a sniper Muninn. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and outrun a speed fit PVP inty/pirate frig.
this thing locks at 250 in sniper mode while going 7km/s , and it locks at 175 in speed mode, while going 11km/s (9kms if you dont use snakes+quafe zero) and will speedtank any sniper fit in the game at that speed and range. http://i.imgur.com/t29IKHD.png (yes thats a whole 3 dps at 175km) sniper fits are setup for 100% max tracking, with the smallest guns that will reach optimally at that range + appropriate ammo, hence their lack of targeting range in that graph. If you can find me a fit that tracks anywhere even close to well ill be shocked. It also goes too fast to probe down, and can do the cloak mwd trick so hard its 30km out of a bubble before the MWD stops cycling, so its pretty much uncatchable at gates. Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again.
1. Your idea that this Svipul would "just warp" seems to forget the fact that it can't warp for 2 minutes at a time.
2. http://i.imgur.com/waJhtx5.png |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
191
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:18:19 -
[1189] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Zappity wrote:Why not allow the first attack to occur any time but the reinforce end during the prime time? This could work I've been theorycrafting sov revamps since 2011 when it became blatantly obvious the system was broken and would lead to the end result we're seeing today, and at no point did I ever come up with the prime time solution. I find primetime to be interesting, though, but on one hand it could work as it'd let them defend, on the other hand it could mean randoms derping around and pinging everything for *****'n'giggles.
I honestly don't know which'd be the right design strategy here, and I suspect only rigorous playtesting'll answer that, like we found with the dominion sov where everyone loved it when it first came out, before it turned seriously sour. |
Doctor Fabulous MD
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:21:52 -
[1190] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:
Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again.
1. Your idea that this Svipul would "just warp" seems to forget the fact that it can't warp for 2 minutes at a time. 2. http://i.imgur.com/waJhtx5.png
Yes, i misspoke and edited my post, he would simply have to burn away until warpoff timer expired.
That naga fit wont hit at all either. |
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
191
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:22:24 -
[1191] - Quote
Drechlas wrote:Lord TGR wrote: That's exploitable. I can have the station etc held by an alliance with 10 people or less in it, which obviously isn't desirable.
Yes and no, an alliance of 10 can't defend more than 10 positions which means 5 systems. All the others can be attacked and as such it isn't a feasible exploit The owner of a station doesn't have to be the defender. The defender can be a 35000 man coalition, but the owner doesn't have to be. That's where the exploitable situation comes into play with making it a slider dependent on the size of whomever owns it.
Drechlas wrote:Lord TGR wrote: This can be dealt with by buffing something else, then increasing taxes for building stuff etc, for example.
True, in general most people tend to think in "nerf one" rather than "buff all other". Either way it needs to be dealt with. Correct. I'm not sure which'll be the correct route, but in general buffing all will be more positively received than nerfing one thing, even if nerfing one thing might be the correct thing to do. Conversely, if you buff everything else, chances are you'll have to nerf something else to compensate, which'll make a ton of other people whine, so you might just see "nerf one" if that's the simplest change which'll yield the lowest whines/nerf ratio. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
314
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:22:32 -
[1192] - Quote
MiliasColds wrote:Angry Mustache wrote:Here's an idea, what if they were battleships only.
It would give battleships a reason to be flown, and not make sov into a giant game of "catch the ceptor" if he can't warp off he's far more catchable, like with a loki :P
Unless he's also ewar immune :) |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:28:13 -
[1193] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:
Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again.
1. Your idea that this Svipul would "just warp" seems to forget the fact that it can't warp for 2 minutes at a time. 2. http://i.imgur.com/waJhtx5.png Yes, i misspoke and edited my post, he would simply have to burn away until warpoff timer expired. That naga fit wont hit at all either.
Propulsion mode: Load Plutonium and swap to tracking speed scripts. I also T2'd both Metastasis adjusters http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png
Sniper mode: Load Tungsten and go half tracking half optimal scripts http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png |
Doctor Fabulous MD
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:31:11 -
[1194] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:
Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again.
1. Your idea that this Svipul would "just warp" seems to forget the fact that it can't warp for 2 minutes at a time. 2. http://i.imgur.com/waJhtx5.png Yes, i misspoke and edited my post, he would simply have to burn away until warpoff timer expired. That naga fit wont hit at all either. Propulsion mode: Load Plutonium and swap to tracking speed scripts. I also T2'd both Metastasis adjusters http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png Sniper mode: Load Tungsten and go half tracking half optimal scripts http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png
You do realize thats 0.4 Damage per second right way less than even the passive shield regen on that thing. |
Geanos
V I R I I Triumvirate.
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:34:12 -
[1195] - Quote
I think that this "prime time" thing helps the mercenary alliances that will take the sov for you from people outside your time zone. And this is a good thing, it adds more variation to gameplay. So there will be huge incentives for said alliances to have people from all time zones. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:35:50 -
[1196] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote: Will the Entosis cycle be affected by TIDI? ( I hope so otherwise Wyvern > Levi >Avatar > Aeon supremacy ) As it said in the dev blog, yes it will be affected by TiDi. Did you read it or just skim it?
Manfred Sideous wrote: I feel like the 4 hour window is to short. (I would recommend 6) I feel like the 4 hour window is fine for now until we see it in action for a bit. If it is too narrow of a window, it can always be increased later.
Manfred Sideous wrote: Besides the name on the map why would anyone choose to move to nullsec? ( Incursions , level 5's already offer more isk per hour than nullsec. ) If you are talking high sec Incursions, you are incorrect. Null anom farming is much better ISK. Level 5 missions pulls in less ISK per tick as well compared to null anoms.
Manfred Sideous wrote: How does all the Risk of Living in Nullsec compare to the rewards of other safer areas in Eve? From everything I have read and even experienced so far - null is one of the safest parts of the game. I get constant updates in my intel channel and anyone not blue I either kill or avoid. I go into high sec and I have war targets lurking everywhere. Even not knowing which neutral is an alt that will provide remote repairs to the war target I'm fighting. There is so much traffic of unknowns I can't keep track of them and to fight them requires I war dec them or suicide gank them. Even if there is no war targets I could be suicide ganked by anyone at any moment and there is no clear way for me to know who is a threat and who is not.
Manfred Sideous wrote: Supercapital Role ? Super capitals have yet to be rebalanced. I am hoping to see their role in the game be completely revamped into something beyond a structure grinder or expensive sling shot for fleet members. Esencially be patient and when CCP turns their attention to them, I'm sure they will enhance null in a positive way. One that is not just meaningful, but very enjoyable for the pilots involved without becoming 'I Win Buttons'. |
Doctor Fabulous MD
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:39:04 -
[1197] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Esencially be patient and when CCP turns their attention to them, I'm sure they will enhance null in a positive way. One that is not just meaningful, but very enjoyable for the pilots involved without becoming 'I Win Buttons'.
CCP has left entire CLASSES of ships uselessly nerfed for nearly half a decade, you better have the patience of a saint. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:41:18 -
[1198] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:
Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again.
1. Your idea that this Svipul would "just warp" seems to forget the fact that it can't warp for 2 minutes at a time. 2. http://i.imgur.com/waJhtx5.png Yes, i misspoke and edited my post, he would simply have to burn away until warpoff timer expired. That naga fit wont hit at all either. Propulsion mode: Load Plutonium and swap to tracking speed scripts. I also T2'd both Metastasis adjusters http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png Sniper mode: Load Tungsten and go half tracking half optimal scripts http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png You do realize thats 0.4 Damage per second right way less than even the passive shield regen on that thing.
god damnit... graphs and numbers... I was so proud of myself too.
Anyways, http://i.imgur.com/qaDmPO3.png one semi-good warpin and dead Svipul. |
Bam Stroker
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
414
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:42:10 -
[1199] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:Things... The hero New Eden needs.
I'm running for CSM X because I want to empower the community builders of New Eden and help make a richer social environment both in and out of game. I'll need your support.
|
Iski Zuki DaSen
Icarus Academy
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:42:34 -
[1200] - Quote
Entosis Link Requires the skill Infomorph Psychology (rank 1 skill)."
**** shoulda been a leadership skill, next tier above fleet command ++r corp management skill
"hey hey i can jump clone" i now have the skill to own sov
so lets grab my interceptor and rule the world
oh no no i forgot i am an AU TZ player |
|
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"? |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1978
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:35:07 -
[1231] - Quote
Starman 1 wrote: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
No.. it benefits large alliances on SMALL AREAS . Large alliances trying to spread over 6 regions will be doomed to failure. And on that space, smaller alliances will pour into.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Doctor Fabulous MD
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:36:08 -
[1232] - 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.
how exactly are you going to warp to a ship going that fast, it takes 10 seconds minimum to probe,warpin, lock target, and activate mod, by that time its already 100km away, no longer in a straight line, so still impossible to track.
and the 28 second align time is with mwd on, just shut it off to warp out. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:37:57 -
[1233] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:I have a question. Can a gang apply several entosis links, one to each station service at same time? Last I checked, yes.
Kagura Nikon wrote: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. This is something which might be a good idea, and it might not. I'm cautiously erring on the side of it being better than 24/7 availability of initial reinforce, but the length'll probably have to be tweaked.
Kagura Nikon wrote: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. An alternative idea is to make it so the bigger you are (either character-wise, or number of systems/constellations), the longer timeframe the primetime'll have. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1981
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:40:33 -
[1234] - 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
aa no.. Simply that will NOT work. An interceptor that cannto move will die in exaclty 2 seconds. So it will NEVER compelte a SINGLE cycle.
So no effect. People with minimal knowledge will not try to spam frigates. Any ship that cannot survive a few minutes will be worthless son that role. People will likely have to KILL the defenders before tryign to take something, OR when there are very few in system, using a marauder will be feasible (since you cannot kill one with a bunch of defense interceptors before it reinforce something).
So you can bring 4 TRILLION interceptors with these modules. As long as there is a single munin on grid the interceptors will NEVER get the station reinforced unless they kill the munin.
THAT PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1799
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:41:06 -
[1235] - Quote
Will cloaking be disabled while entosis link is active?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1981
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:42:52 -
[1236] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:I have a question. Can a gang apply several entosis links, one to each station service at same time? Last I checked, yes. Kagura Nikon wrote: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. This is something which might be a good idea, and it might not. I'm cautiously erring on the side of it being better than 24/7 availability of initial reinforce, but the length'll probably have to be tweaked. Kagura Nikon wrote: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. An alternative idea is to make it so the bigger you are (either character-wise, or number of systems/constellations), the longer timeframe the primetime'll have.
Yup that might work as well. But I hope CCP stops and thinks a bit about it. Otherwise I predict a null sec fragmentation by idiom/timezone, because the most powerful tool of defense will be: simply have 50% + of the players on your timezone. And coalitions WILL PUSH FOR IT, as they have pushed for every gap on history of eve.
"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 10:43:37 -
[1237] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Will cloaking be disabled while entosis link is active? As it is an active module, I think that is pretty much certain.
I Didn't see it specifically mentioned, but it was not mentioned that it specifically operated in a different manner to any other active module. so pretty sure.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1981
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:44:22 -
[1238] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Will cloaking be disabled while entosis link is active?
Considering you cannot LOCK anything while cloaked.. it is not even needed.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1982
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:48:47 -
[1239] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote: Will the Entosis cycle be affected by TIDI? ( I hope so otherwise Wyvern > Levi >Avatar > Aeon supremacy ) There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment. These two points seem clear, from the dev blogs: 1. TiDI = yes "Both the cycle time of the Entosis Link module and the actual capture process will be affected by time dilation." 2. Battleship position on the graph: one can draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The graph headline was "graph of PVP damage by class" - that implied all PVP damage, everywhere. Therefore its legit to say the figure could be biased in favor of BS damage during SOV grinds, pos & poco bashes - everywhere. Rise's point is that the BS class is getting used and applying lots of damage during the graph period, but for many players, the way they are used (structure grinding), or the fact that their group does not use them or see them around for various reasons, is more important.
After the sov changes are applied.. Lets just remember rise to RE MAKE that graphic. I could bet a cookie that battleships will sink into oblivion.
Then we can rub on gamce balance team face that battleships need love.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:49:44 -
[1240] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote: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.
For the record: When these changes were announced I argued that Nullsec ressource distribution is in dire need of rebalancing.
However, we did the test. And it turns out I was wrong.
Went to remote nullsec with the goal of trying to set up full T2 production. T2 has the most complicated production chains, so that would be a good indicator to whether it is possible to be self sufficient or not. And we said no matter what happens - we will NOT use jump freighters. We are 2 industrialists with no extra indu alts. We operate equivalent 4 Large Towers for reactions and from time to time some extra small ones to get certain ressources. The operational area is roughly 1 constellation (8 systems). R64s and R32s are traded from our friendly moon overlords who are also happy to buy the final products for their fleets. There is a bit of alchemy involved and in the end we only need to import 1-2 sorts of moon goo from empire. 13 PI colonies produce POS fuel components. Running the thing now since 5 months, production capacity is like 6 T2 cruisers per week (or 25 frigs or a mixture) which is enough to supply a small corporation or alliance. Logistics are easier than expected. We are dependant on empire (no local Caldari Isotopes and several other materials available plus we import all the other ice stuff because no one likes mining), but we only need about 5 trips to empire monthly in a DST. Those are easily manageable since we use wormhole connections. One basically needs ONE dedicated scanner/explorer and will get a decent connection every other day. And getting the scanner is not an issue since exploration easily yields 100-200M ISK/hour while searching for the empire connection.
Basically the only downside is that you need to reconfigure the reaction towers all the time. And this is configuration HELL. There is so many little things that make this task incredibly complicated (put nicely: "challenging") that you almost instantly go insane. It needs tons of spreadsheets, container and bookmark systems etc and still you make mistakes all the time and cause inefficiencies. And the ISK gain is less than what you get from running optimized reactions with a dedicated tower for each one.
I would have liked to present these results to CCP Greyscale, but sadly he's gone meanwhile... :-/
TL;DR: JFs are already unnecessary, people just need to be a bit creative ;-) |
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:51:11 -
[1241] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Will cloaking be disabled while entosis link is active? Oh god I hope so. No sov lazer + cloak trick please CCP |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:56:27 -
[1242] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Yup that might work as well. But I hope CCP stops and thinks a bit about it. Otherwise I predict a null sec fragmentation by idiom/timezone, because the most powerful tool of defense will be: simply have 50% + of the players on your timezone. And coalitions WILL PUSH FOR IT, as they have pushed for every gap on history of eve. I think your fears are unfounded. Even if we assume a fantasy scenario where we've got two coalitions next to eachother, where the defending coalition had, say, 60% of that timezone's worth of players in that area, that doesn't mean the remaining 40% in that area can't attack the 60%'s space and, if nothing else at least have good fun fights, but maybe even make inroads because they're just better-skilled (IRL, not in-game) players, with better FCs, better strategists etc.
Edit: At the very least, they'll be able to constantly have content, while having something "on the line" to post badly about as each side has a good or bad day and wins/loses. |
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
576
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:58:16 -
[1243] - Quote
Gorski Car wrote:Xenuria wrote:I support this.
I agree...
If you knew about this and allowed it to come to fruition as a CSM member...I'd shut up :)
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
Coolest Space
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:00:48 -
[1244] - Quote
Is it only me that felt that groups like reavers also kind of broke SOV when they could take SOV or at least disturb SOV with only 10 people in one system. And now you say 1 guy with a Entosis Link can disturb sov for a whole alliance. |
Rumbaldi
Quantum Innovations Limited
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:01:12 -
[1245] - Quote
the feeling I get from this is...
The whole system/idea feels really clunky to me.
Structure bashing has been moved to this Entosis thing and the timers seems to have been shortened but it is still the same kind of thing just dressed a slightly different way
Worthless space is still worthless space.
The multiple node things just means that larger alliances will be able to camp more people at each preventing smaller alliances/groups from getting a foothold.
The T1 Varient of the Entosis is Pointless
The Range of the T2 Variant is too long
|
Tirion79
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:01:45 -
[1246] - Quote
Awesome way off ******* up the game even more... GJ CCP destroying something that once was THE game to play. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:02:56 -
[1247] - Quote
Coolest Space wrote:Is it only me that felt that groups like reavers also kind of broke SOV when they could take SOV or at least disturb SOV with only 10 people in one system. And now you say 1 guy with a Entosis Link can disturb sov for a whole alliance. They can take sov after spending almost a full week going at it with absolutely no response from the people living there, vs something which at the least just needs one guy to be there with a counter-entosis link to pause the capture process ... during a short "prime time" timeframe. Oh dear so sad. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1553
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:03:45 -
[1248] - Quote
Really interesting proposal from CCP, at last there will now be guerrilla warfare with out needing to be a gorilla
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:06:32 -
[1249] - Quote
i dont know about everyone else but i guess my question can be broken down into two parts about this patch.
1. if you remove structure grinds and reasons to call CTA's how do you plan on giving a reason for large scale fleet engagements? like it or not a large number of players actually play eve for these kind of ops and you are in essence taking those TIMERS away. yeah we will have POS's but i mean really if your not having a epic fleet fight in defense of your own space or not getting to kick butt with your bros kicking the teeth in of some lowly chumps whos space you want then why log in. to go 60 jumps on a roam and watch 15 cepters fly by you and only killing the one guy who didn't pay attention to his intel channel?
2. where does this leave capital and supercapitals? both in production and in uses? as it sits right now capitals are being used be it less than before the jump range patch but still people are still using them, but after this patch what would the use for a supercarrier be? what use would a dread be other than hoping someone brings a battleship fleet in range of them? what purpose do titans have other than shooting towers? I understand CCP is going to be reworking capitals and i agree some major changes need to take place but i must say it better be good because as it sits right now all i see is capitals getting a kicking and t1 cruisers out performing. maybe ccp should leave sov for a bit and fix things that really are very very very unbalanced like sentrys, damps, bombers, cepters, maybe they should think about how a 30mil dictor can keep a group of 100 capitals on a gate for hours maybe look at bumping mechanics and how they have no base in real life or hell maybe look at doing something about highsec ganking.
my end point is im happy CCP is trying to make the game better but for gods sake of the thousands of things wrong with this game i think sov should be someplace near the middle of the list. lets fix these problems before we go making new ones
ahhh almost forgot. if you insist on this new module then make it only usable on one ship type like command ships. ooo and your fix to ishtars does nothing and we still will be playing ishtar online take the battleship sized gun of the hac that's your fix. |
Rumbaldi
Quantum Innovations Limited
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:11:58 -
[1250] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote: Suggestion: FORCE alliances to choose one DIFFERENT time window for each constellation where they hold sov. Implications: -I am a small group, 1 timezone: I can hold sov in one constellation, people will have to fight in my prime time. -I want to be bigger and hold multiple constellations: I need to be able to defend multiple 4-hour-windows in different timezones -if I want to attack CFC or N3 with a small group, I will always find a constellation where they are vulnerable in my timezone. The other way round does not work. They have to fight me where I am strongest. -if 2 large entities battle each other, there will be all sorts of shenanigans. They will have to carefully choose which constellations get vulnerable in which timezone, but generally they will be vulnerable somewhere 24/7. -basically, the more territory you have, the longer your vulnerability time gets -maybe even narrow the vulnerability window down to 3 hours and create 8 non-overlapping fixed timeslots. Own up to one constellation: you must be ready to fight for 3 hours each day. 2 constellations: 6 hours... and so on. If you have 8 or more constellations, at least one constellation will always be vulnerable. -in very large alliances, people from all timezones will have "their" constellations they can/have to defend -if an entity wants to attack a small sov holder, place AND time are in favour of the defender -if attacking a large entity, the attacker has the choice of EITHER choosing a strategically important constellation OR attack something less valuable in a maybe slightly better timezone (assuming the vulnerability windows would be visible on the starmap or the like and assuming the defender did his homework and assigned the most important constellations to his best timezones)
I really like the new approach. Sounds promising. I see many people in this thread though who fail to see the implications, because they are thinking in the old ways.
IMO, this is the best idea I have read so far. Smaller entities having to find a vulnerability, attacking a system to see when the timer comes out... bad time for that alliance they need to try elsewhere. To me this seems balanced.
|
|
Murauke
Assisted Homicide
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:14:49 -
[1251] - Quote
After reflection, i am not sure i like the idea of the null sec changes. It just looks like to me that you've swapped grinding structures into something very similar to grinding Factional Warfare plexes.
I am intrigued to see what sort of game play comes when you unlock the new features associated to additional "system" services. i see the only way to "give people their own piece of the pie" is to let people castle themselves and give them the resources they need. In other words let people put a moat around their system(s). There isn't much in the way of being able to "strategically" defend a system, all the idea's that come out are all about "strategically attacking".
Could be wrong though. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1799
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:16:10 -
[1252] - Quote
Coming up in 16...15...14... http://imgur.com/EFz5UOf
I'm astonished by the difference between this thread and reddit.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Murauke
Assisted Homicide
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:18:16 -
[1253] - Quote
Rumbaldi wrote:Edward Olmops wrote: Suggestion: FORCE alliances to choose one DIFFERENT time window for each constellation where they hold sov. Implications: -I am a small group, 1 timezone: I can hold sov in one constellation, people will have to fight in my prime time. -I want to be bigger and hold multiple constellations: I need to be able to defend multiple 4-hour-windows in different timezones -if I want to attack CFC or N3 with a small group, I will always find a constellation where they are vulnerable in my timezone. The other way round does not work. They have to fight me where I am strongest. -if 2 large entities battle each other, there will be all sorts of shenanigans. They will have to carefully choose which constellations get vulnerable in which timezone, but generally they will be vulnerable somewhere 24/7. -basically, the more territory you have, the longer your vulnerability time gets -maybe even narrow the vulnerability window down to 3 hours and create 8 non-overlapping fixed timeslots. Own up to one constellation: you must be ready to fight for 3 hours each day. 2 constellations: 6 hours... and so on. If you have 8 or more constellations, at least one constellation will always be vulnerable. -in very large alliances, people from all timezones will have "their" constellations they can/have to defend -if an entity wants to attack a small sov holder, place AND time are in favour of the defender -if attacking a large entity, the attacker has the choice of EITHER choosing a strategically important constellation OR attack something less valuable in a maybe slightly better timezone (assuming the vulnerability windows would be visible on the starmap or the like and assuming the defender did his homework and assigned the most important constellations to his best timezones)
I really like the new approach. Sounds promising. I see many people in this thread though who fail to see the implications, because they are thinking in the old ways. IMO, this is the best idea I have read so far. Smaller entities having to find a vulnerability, attacking a system to see when the timer comes out... bad time for that alliance they need to try elsewhere. To me this seems balanced.
You know you could be onto something here. Another idea is to make "Your most active timezone" scale able to the amount of systems/constellations your alliance/corp holds. e.g. Alliance is across 10 systems, 2 constellations = 1.02 mulitplyer of additional active timezone. Make the amount of systems you hold directly related to the length of your vulnerability. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:21:00 -
[1254] - Quote
So where is the focus on capitals? After the major nerf in Phoebe to all capitals, I feel like it's time you guys at least look at them again. Having one character that can fly all capitals is also totaly useless now as if I fly a carrier one day I can forgot about using my dread or black ops same day if I **** up I can forget about using capitals for another week. |
EVE-Lotteries
EVE-Lotteries Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:23:35 -
[1255] - Quote
Mmmhmm it's smell like nullbear tears. Best tears ever !
You miss blink ? Come and play with us at EVE-Lotteries.com !
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1983
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:27:15 -
[1256] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Yup that might work as well. But I hope CCP stops and thinks a bit about it. Otherwise I predict a null sec fragmentation by idiom/timezone, because the most powerful tool of defense will be: simply have 50% + of the players on your timezone. And coalitions WILL PUSH FOR IT, as they have pushed for every gap on history of eve. I think your fears are unfounded. Even if we assume a fantasy scenario where we've got two coalitions next to eachother, where the defending coalition had, say, 60% of that timezone's worth of players in that area, that doesn't mean the remaining 40% in that area can't attack the 60%'s space and, if nothing else at least have good fun fights, but maybe even make inroads because they're just better-skilled (IRL, not in-game) players, with better FCs, better strategists etc. Edit: At the very least, they'll be able to constantly have content, while having something "on the line" to post badly about as each side has a good or bad day and wins/loses.
On sov games, I prefer to err on the caution side, given the history we had until now. Anyway.. to add an automatic change of prime time extension is somethign that ccp can add later without conflicting with the rest of the system
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Imolus
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:28:34 -
[1257] - Quote
I have a feeling that both developers and players mistakenly put too much emphasis on "planting the flag".
Why people come to null sec? First and foremost, null sec promises greater wealth over empire space. Better rats, better asteroid belts, better moons, better planets even if all of this comes at a price GÇô a risk of getting killed every time you engage in said activities. PvP is another reason why people come to null sec GÇô some enjoy living in a dangerous space, some enjoy being hunters, some simply like unrestricted PvP. A struggle between the above groups of peole is what provides a stage for politics and wars. It's what largely powers industry and market. It forms an intricate machinery. Well being of null sec highly depends on flawless operation of said machinery.
On a most basic level, people form alliances in order to capture resources (ex. R64 moons) which in turn produce income allowing to better equip their people, so they could capture even more resources and have a firepower to fight against other alliances who are doing the same. This is something humans have been doing for centuries. Sometimes wars could be sparked by personal conflicts between leaders of various groups, or due to ideological reasons, but more often than not people fight and kill eachother over resources.
Unfortunately proposed sov changes are laregly neglecting the driving force of the conflict. Instead, we're getting battleground-esque game features with a sole purpose of showing who owns the system.
Stars, planets, moons, asteroid belts should be the object of sov warfare, not random arbitrary structures like tcu's, sbu's, ihubs, etc. Power of the alliance should stem from their ability to controll and extract resources, not from having their name displayed in a solar system information window.
CCP could introduce various grandiose deployable structures, such as dyson sphere which would require an entire alliance to put a serious effort into building one, but once finished would provide a huge boon, maybe even something that could benefit entire EVE playerbase. For example atrificial wormhole which could be used as a highway between certain systems for commerce or otherwise (think Suez Canal). Controlling such player built assets would be a serious driving force for cooperation and conflict.
I'm really sad that with having all those awesome creative people at CCP we haven't received much sci-fi features since incarna (even though player base kinda enforced it) GÇô it's either more fancier, better balanced ships, or more fancier ways to blow them up (which isn't necessarily bad).
I'm starting to drift off-topic now...
TLDR; Please focus development on conflict over resources instead of arbitrary structures and gimmicky game mechanics. |
Jessy Andersteen
AdAstra. Beach Club Red Whines.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:29:31 -
[1258] - Quote
So many tears from people who pvp with 4 fleets of 250 people!
THX CCP. Continue like that! That's the update we are waitin for since 4 years or more.
I like the idea of outpost similar to FW mechanism. Please do some oupost "only for frigs". Don't forget the noobs! They need another thing to do than "be the 249em caracal in a large fleet"
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:31:22 -
[1259] - Quote
No point in having skillpoints over a certain pvp degree. No point in owning a station (besides other things) that is reinforced most of the time. Bad idea for a game being forced to be online every day for a 4h window.
Btw. none of the roaming sov capture fleets want to own any space in null.
Player are already unsubbing these useless high skilled and high equipped accounts. If you can't or don't want to be online 4h every day go to npc space or unsub. If your corp is not big enough go to npc space or unsub. If you are interested in industry only, never not go to null.
I see more empty systems and much less ppl. living in null than now and similarities to games that don't exist anymore like SWG.
|
Dominique Vasilkovsky
BFG Tech
205
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:34:25 -
[1260] - Quote
Not even a hundred pages in 24h, people must be rather happy with this change then.
Dominique Vasilkovsky EVEboard
Once known as:
Mashie Saldana sold - Anastasia Rigel sold - Monica Foulkes sold
|
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1555
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:36:10 -
[1261] - Quote
interesting times, for every player threatening to leave, there will be two resubscribing, sitting on the bleachers, with hotdogs and popcorn (and beer) watching the show.....
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Jessy Andersteen
AdAstra. Beach Club Red Whines.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:38:49 -
[1262] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:interesting times, for every player threatening to leave, there will be two resubscribing, sitting on the bleachers, with hotdogs and popcorn (and beer) watching the show.....
TRUE.
and...
WTB ARCHON 600M. If u unscribe.... :D |
Snoodaard Thrasy
Yulai Guard Yulai Federation
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:43:12 -
[1263] - Quote
So overall I can live with most of the suggestions. Some minor tweaks here and there and this could work.
One big problem I think I have is that these changes make it too easy for hostile forces to reinforce systems and farm fights if they are not interested in actually taking sovereignty.
Especially if the intention is to have smaller entities gain sov, all the big boys (Goons, PL, etc etc.) need to do is send a large roaming gang in that are not easily counterable in <30 minutes by the locals, reinforce a load of systems and they are set 2 days later with tons of potential skirmishes over nodes in numerous systems. In the current system, an SBU takes 3 hours to online, which gives you a lot more time to defend your space from reinforcement and also requires a lot more commitment on the side of the reinforcer.
Seems to me that the defenders deserve more warning than a notification 25 minutes before their low index pipe systems go into reinforce. Hence, some sort of SBU system is still in order I think. Think of a module that anchores in 1 minute, onlines in 1 hour during which it can be destroyed and stays in an invulnerable mode for 24 hours after it onlines or so before it automatically despawns afterwards. Means defenders have an hour to prevent vulnerability to their system and they know they will have to be ready for attempts at reinforcement in a 24 hour window (during the vulnerable period only of course) allowing them to prepare.
Bottom line: you need to have a chance to actually prevent reinforcement of your system, much like the current SBU system. 20-30 minutes is too short for a serious fleet formation and impossible if the locals already have large roaming fleets out. (This new systems disencourages roaming!) |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1555
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:44:38 -
[1264] - Quote
You live there and defend it, it is home, nothing new about that concept. Why does it seem so hard to understand that?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2306
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:44:50 -
[1265] - Quote
The fact that people cannot agree who this favours and how is a good sign.
Although the 4hr period is a bit restrictive, its probably one of the easiest things to tweak when the changes go live.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1983
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:49:15 -
[1266] - Quote
Snoodaard Thrasy wrote:So overall I can live with most of the suggestions. Some minor tweaks here and there and this could work.
One big problem I think I have is that these changes make it too easy for hostile forces to reinforce systems and farm fights if they are not interested in actually taking sovereignty.
Especially if the intention is to have smaller entities gain sov, all the big boys (Goons, PL, etc etc.) need to do is send a large roaming gang in that are not easily counterable in <30 minutes by the locals, reinforce a load of systems and they are set 2 days later with tons of potential skirmishes over nodes in numerous systems. In the current system, an SBU takes 3 hours to online, which gives you a lot more time to defend your space from reinforcement and also requires a lot more commitment on the side of the reinforcer.
Seems to me that the defenders deserve more warning than a notification 25 minutes before their low index pipe systems go into reinforce. Hence, some sort of SBU system is still in order I think. Think of a module that anchores in 1 minute, onlines in 1 hour during which it can be destroyed and stays in an invulnerable mode for 24 hours after it onlines or so before it automatically despawns afterwards. Means defenders have an hour to prevent vulnerability to their system and they know they will have to be ready for attempts at reinforcement in a 24 hour window (during the vulnerable period only of course) allowing them to prepare.
Bottom line: you need to have a chance to actually prevent reinforcement of your system, much like the current SBU system. 20-30 minutes is too short for a serious fleet formation and impossible if the locals already have large roaming fleets out. (This new systems disencourages roaming!)
and then they cannot keep that territory later.. so no point taking space that you cannot hold. With time ccp can adjust the time lenghts and make this system work quite well.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
73
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:55:40 -
[1267] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
If they succeed, they will celebrate their plan and CCP will look stupid.
I donGÇÖt think CCP need any help in that area
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
Snoodaard Thrasy
Yulai Guard Yulai Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:56:51 -
[1268] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:
You are aware that the takeover happens in two stages right?
First the initial reinforcing. ...48 hour period... Capture event (where the real takeover mechanics are)
This is why its so easy to reinforce a structure at first. Because its not the main event.
My point is that it's too easy to generate events. I think you should have to put some effort in to force a sov holding coalition to come and defend their space. As suggested now, sov holders will be constantly farmed for fights over nodes. And considering the nature of the command node event there will be plenty of opportunity to play it out in such a way that you get kills without having to face the full force of the defenders.
I don't want to come back from an alliance roam to a reinforced system each time. Sov should not be merely about providing permanent content for farmers. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3943
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:57:08 -
[1269] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Suede
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:00:31 -
[1270] - Quote
Snoodaard Thrasy wrote:So overall I can live with most of the suggestions. Some minor tweaks here and there and this could work.
One big problem I think I have is that these changes make it too easy for hostile forces to reinforce systems and farm fights if they are not interested in actually taking sovereignty.
Especially if the intention is to have smaller entities gain sov, all the big boys (Goons, PL, etc etc.) need to do is send a large roaming gang in that are not easily counterable in <30 minutes by the locals, reinforce a load of systems and they are set 2 days later with tons of potential skirmishes over nodes in numerous systems. In the current system, an SBU takes 3 hours to online, which gives you a lot more time to defend your space from reinforcement and also requires a lot more commitment on the side of the reinforcer.
Seems to me that the defenders deserve more warning than a notification 25 minutes before their low index pipe systems go into reinforce. Hence, some sort of SBU system is still in order I think. Think of a module that anchores in 1 minute, onlines in 1 hour during which it can be destroyed and stays in an invulnerable mode for 24 hours after it onlines or so before it automatically despawns afterwards. Means defenders have an hour to prevent vulnerability to their system and they know they will have to be ready for attempts at reinforcement in a 24 hour window (during the vulnerable period only of course) allowing them to prepare.
Bottom line: you need to have a chance to actually prevent reinforcement of your system, much like the current SBU system. 20-30 minutes is too short for a serious fleet formation and impossible if the locals already have large roaming fleets out. (This new systems disencourages roaming!)
Most of this is not yet set to stone and by the time june comes might all change again.
CCP devs only trying to make it fair for all the other players and not just one sided, end of the day CCP are trying to do what is best and it only a game we are only are paying customers to CCP for a service
CCP devs have done a very good job over the years in the updates
Like to see what CCP have in plans over the (Player Own StarGates)
|
|
ORLICZ
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:00:39 -
[1271] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:
Suggestion: FORCE alliances to choose one DIFFERENT time window for each constellation where they hold sov. Implications: -I am a small group, 1 timezone: I can hold sov in one constellation, people will have to fight in my prime time. -I want to be bigger and hold multiple constellations: I need to be able to defend multiple 4-hour-windows in different timezones -if I want to attack CFC or N3 with a small group, I will always find a constellation where they are vulnerable in my timezone. The other way round does not work. They have to fight me where I am strongest. -if 2 large entities battle each other, there will be all sorts of shenanigans. They will have to carefully choose which constellations get vulnerable in which timezone, but generally they will be vulnerable somewhere 24/7. -basically, the more territory you have, the longer your vulnerability time gets -maybe even narrow the vulnerability window down to 3 hours and create 8 non-overlapping fixed timeslots. Own up to one constellation: you must be ready to fight for 3 hours each day. 2 constellations: 6 hours... and so on. If you have 8 or more constellations, at least one constellation will always be vulnerable. -in very large alliances, people from all timezones will have "their" constellations they can/have to defend -if an entity wants to attack a small sov holder, place AND time are in favour of the defender -if attacking a large entity, the attacker has the choice of EITHER choosing a strategically important constellation OR attack something less valuable in a maybe slightly better timezone (assuming the vulnerability windows would be visible on the starmap or the like and assuming the defender did his homework and assigned the most important constellations to his best timezones) .
very nice idea
+ The Entosis Link only for certain ships- command ships ? + Longer timers for Entosis Link ? min 20min? and for capital 40 min + Add easier way to obtain lvl 5 industry index- but less mineras in single gravi +Add 30% discount pos fuel consumption with sov (there should be reward for owning sov) +Add 15% increase pos fuel consumption during Freeport Mode ( motivate to keep sov longer- fliping stations too often should cost more)
|
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1592
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:05:31 -
[1272] - Quote
Page 62 and the last Dev comment for this topic was about that stupid gif on page 5!.
How about, hum, interacting with this disgrunted part of your player base CCP? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30741
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:11:10 -
[1273] - Quote
I didn't see any mention of whether 'tosis modules will make the ship immune to ewar. Otherwise I can jam myself with an alt to exit cycle and catch reps.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Anthar Thebess
946
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:12:25 -
[1274] - Quote
Stuff will be epic. This is how the nullsec should look like from the beginning , constant fight. I wonder how long it will take for players to find a hole that will allow to overcome this.
Again big groups will prepare for this. NA will be spited to smaller alliances just to have less systems vulnerable at the same time.
There must be a benefit for owning all structures in a system. Without of this i make 3 alliances. TCU holding alliance Station holding alliance Ihub Holding alliance
I will setup different timers on each alliance so someone cannot come and ref every thing.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30741
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:14:41 -
[1275] - Quote
Coolest Space wrote:Is it only me that felt that groups like reavers also kind of broke SOV when they could take SOV or at least disturb SOV with only 10 people in one system. And now you say 1 guy with a Entosis Link can disturb sov for a whole alliance. That only happened / happens when there's no one around to defend other than PVE farmers.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
AlexKent
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:19:13 -
[1276] - Quote
Entosis Link should only fit to Bcruiser/Bship and above to prevent abuse. It will also give people a reason to fly these over cruiser and frigate hulls.
P.S.
RIP capital warfare, not sure if a bad or good thing.
|
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:23:44 -
[1277] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Stuff will be epic. This is how the nullsec should look like from the beginning , constant fight. I wonder how long it will take for players to find a hole that will allow to overcome this.
I will setup different timers on each alliance so someone cannot come and ref every thing.
I think that's what you think and what dev's think, and that's what's gonna doom nullsec. People in nullsec (most) likes fighting, people in nullsec don't wanna spend 4h/day chasing ceptors around the constellation. With the upcoming change when a group of 20 bored space gypsies decide to attack 20 systems with 20 entosis links they're gonna harass the whole operations of hunreds of guys at the cost of nothing. And the harassed people who lived for years in null is gonna unsub or go back to lowsec/highsec.
One of the greatest issues with this change, as you can see by checking a bit posting in this thread, is that the people (most) whose happier with the changes, actually never lived in sov null nor tried to.
CCP's Achilles heel is that they change things on the game based on feedback from people who, actually, never tried those things. That's why the game is on it's way to doom and, unless devs erase their delusion of "we see things you don't", we'll be seeing ~20k players on tops by christmas. |
Royaldo
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
108
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:25:05 -
[1278] - Quote
"While the current sovereignty system worked fine for many years" Good joke man |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:30:36 -
[1279] - Quote
Murauke wrote:You know you could be onto something here. Another idea is to make "Your most active timezone" scale able to the amount of systems/constellations your alliance/corp holds. e.g. Alliance is across 10 systems, 2 constellations = 1.02 mulitplyer of additional active timezone. Make the amount of systems you hold directly related to the length of your vulnerability. This is gameable by using lots of stub alliances, unless you link it so it rewards bigger sizes, which is counter to the underlying premise of the changes. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1555
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:30:56 -
[1280] - Quote
AlexKent wrote:Entosis Link should only fit to Bcruiser/Bship and above to prevent abuse. It will also give people a reason to fly these over cruiser and frigate hulls.
P.S.
RIP capital warfare, not sure if a bad or good thing.
what you claim is abuse is actually the whole point of the system. You seem to have missed the devblog.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:31:00 -
[1281] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Shodan Of Citadel wrote:Freeport Mode... Gives the aggressor docking rights and turn every battle into high-sec station bullshit.
Goal 6... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm sure Goons will only bring 2-300 people instead of system crushing 2-3000.
Entosis Link -turned EVE into some twisted king of the hill system where sheer number of Links win.
CCP, give machariels a bonus to juggling and the middle lane.
Did you read it. The number of links is not important. 1000 links from an attacker and 1 link from a defender and the timer does not count down.
They will bring enough for the first timer. On the second timer they will dump 250 on your station and have some 50-100 ceptors capture the nodes. With the current version taking an entire constellation will be extremely easy. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:32:48 -
[1282] - Quote
CCP wrote: Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved
By having to be active for 4 hours each day to defend space, and then having to respond to one guy that want to griefe a alliance with his Entosis Link. This goal is allready a miss.
CCP wrote:Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems
Maybe you somehow could make titans usefull again in sov war here? If enemy don't come to defend sov structures a easy DD to destouy sov structores maybe, I don't see why we need to implement new moduals for SOV war when we have these ultimate SOV war machines SUPERS AND TITANS!
Also lowering Jump Fatigue within own hold systems would make capitals usefull again.
CCP wrote:Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.
This is not FW, if I wanted to do FW I would join that.
CCP wrote:Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load.
This is some Sun Tzu art of War bullshit, and it wont work unless you manage to break up Goonswarm and NC. before you implement it.
Introducing the Entosis Link
Feel like a lazy way to get around it, and easy solution and the low skill point requierment is a minus in my eyes. I can't say this enought but null sec is not ment for everyon, people who have spent years in null build up a good amount of SP and ships you can't use in High Sec. The idea that people can harass alliances to respond to one simple ship activating his Entosis Link on their structures is just to simple. We already have have a modual that until recently was only used in null the Doomsday find a way to make it usefull in sov warfare instead of this Entosis Link. I'm cool if people have to risk titans to take systems fast, but risk a 100 mill ship is just to simple for null. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1555
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:33:47 -
[1283] - Quote
be grateful this was the alternative plan for nulls sov
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-30687171
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:36:02 -
[1284] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Shodan Of Citadel wrote:Freeport Mode... Gives the aggressor docking rights and turn every battle into high-sec station bullshit.
Goal 6... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm sure Goons will only bring 2-300 people instead of system crushing 2-3000.
Entosis Link -turned EVE into some twisted king of the hill system where sheer number of Links win.
CCP, give machariels a bonus to juggling and the middle lane.
Did you read it. The number of links is not important. 1000 links from an attacker and 1 link from a defender and the timer does not count down. They will bring enough for the first timer. On the second timer they will dump 250 on your station and have some 50-100 ceptors capture the nodes. With the current version taking an entire constellation will be extremely easy. Some might do that in one constellation, but now notice how there's more than one constellation in the game. |
stickz06
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:37:16 -
[1285] - Quote
Assuming the T2 Entosis Link keeps its 250KM range, it should be a Super Cap only module. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
784
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:37:30 -
[1286] - Quote
One interesting thing is having a station in a system is now a liability if it is not there for a specific purpose and a place where combat players hang out - a region with lots of stations will constantly have one or another in freeport status, undermining security. And its too late to do anything about that now, as so many regions are flooded with the things. If destructible (in attack) stations are still being ignored, it is vital that organisations can self-destruct their own, so that people can prepare their space for a future with less secure stations. |
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:38:16 -
[1287] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:
Feel like a lazy way to get around it, and easy solution and the low skill point requierment is a minus in my eyes. I can't say this enought but null sec is not ment for everyon, people who have spent years in null build up a good amount of SP and ships you can't use in High Sec. The idea that people can harass alliances to respond to one simple ship activating his Entosis Link on their structures is just to simple. We already have have a modual that until recently was only used in null the Doomsday find a way to make it usefull in sov warfare instead of this Entosis Link. I'm cool if people have to risk titans to take systems fast, but risk a 100 mill ship is just to simple for null.
Don't you get they wanna allow 5M sps pubbies in 60M worth ships be able to harass >100M sps, >5 years suscribing pilots?
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1555
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:39:03 -
[1288] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:One interesting thing is having a station in a system is now a liability if it is not there for a specific purpose and a place where combat players hang out - a region with lots of stations will constantly have one or another in freeport status, undermining security. And its too late to do anything about that now, as so many regions are flooded with the things. If destructible (in attack) stations are still being ignored, it is vital that organisations can self-destruct their own, so that people can prepare their space for a future with less secure stations.
Better have some people living in it then. If you don't someone will. Otherwise, it is not your space any more,is it?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30741
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:39:12 -
[1289] - Quote
Hey CCP, another reason to make 'tosis immobile is floating outside of lock range to break cycle.
Cutting a Sensor Integrity warfare link could accomplish the same thing.
You might need to change this to be range-based, with T1 becoming valid within 25km, and T2 within 250. Make the rest of it act like a cyno with RR disallowed. This takes care of the lock range shenanigans.
[How much time did you spend thinking about this module? I'm trying to be nice but c'mon]
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
73
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:40:24 -
[1290] - Quote
Dominique Vasilkovsky wrote:Not even a hundred pages in 24h, people must be rather happy with this change then.
No. They just realise that CCP will do what they want whatever is said. So all this is rather pointless.
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
268
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:41:15 -
[1291] - Quote
Quote:I have written a status update blog looking back on Phase One of our Nullsec changes (which released in Phoebe last November) and how they have impacted the game. You can find that blog here, but for the lazy people the TL:DR is that the results are looking quite positive so far and those Phoebe changes put us in a much stronger position from which to launch Phase Two.
CCP your TL:DR are your own conclusions and opinions.
1. Nullsec Population and General Activity A +23.6% increase in manufacturing jobs per day in Nullsec vs a +0.7% increase in mining volume per day in Nullsec since Phoebe.
So you made building in nullsec cheaper then in hisec, only means more alts stay docked in stations to produce and nullsec is still on the Jita life support.
2. Nullsec PVP Activity Overall score for Nullsec PVP Activity: Significant overall improvement, but largely in one half of Nullsec. So this is what happens when a big alliances like N3 coalition moves space and you call it a victory
3. Capital Ship Activity You own conclussion: A wash. Continued work on engaging and balanced roles for Capital Ships will be needed in the future, especially as some of their current roles in structure shooting are de-emphasized in Phase Two. You are interested in taking away the ability of fighters to warp. Nobody wants to fly capitals soonGäó
4. Sovereignty Conquests
Quote:If Phase Two is a success, we would ideally like to see a significantly higher status quo, less reliant on bursts of activity from major wars.
My jaw drops to the ground hearing this much hubris from CCPgames
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
|
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:41:27 -
[1292] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Lurifax wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Shodan Of Citadel wrote:Freeport Mode... Gives the aggressor docking rights and turn every battle into high-sec station bullshit.
Goal 6... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm sure Goons will only bring 2-300 people instead of system crushing 2-3000.
Entosis Link -turned EVE into some twisted king of the hill system where sheer number of Links win.
CCP, give machariels a bonus to juggling and the middle lane.
Did you read it. The number of links is not important. 1000 links from an attacker and 1 link from a defender and the timer does not count down. They will bring enough for the first timer. On the second timer they will dump 250 on your station and have some 50-100 ceptors capture the nodes. With the current version taking an entire constellation will be extremely easy. Some might do that in one constellation, but now notice how there's more than one constellation in the game.
If you are able to camp them in, it does not matter if its 1 or 5 constellation. You dont need, dreads, supers or huge amount of dps to grind the structure. Just 20-50 ceptors to grap 10 points. |
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
73
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:41:31 -
[1293] - Quote
Jessy Andersteen wrote:And people just want less large scales engagment.
Wrong. A LOT of people love them.
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
Norrin Zelkarr
Universalis Imperium The Bastion
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:42:49 -
[1294] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:While the current sovereignty system worked fine for many years, we see the need for a fundamental overhaul. We are excited to present the plans for a new sov system coming early this summer including: 1) No more grinding through hitpoints 2) Meaningful combat events distributed over the whole constellation 3) Space activity results in defensive bonus 4) Designated daily "Prime time" for alliances when their structures become vulnerable Read all about this new sov system, the mechanics and the fine details in CCP Fozzie's latest blog Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two! God, the whining in this thread.
CCP, you're on the right track. Don't listen to naysayers. This new system sounds fun, dynamic, and paints a big target on the backs of the aspects of null that cause it to calcify and become boring. +1 to you. |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
396
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:43:27 -
[1295] - Quote
I like most of what has been proposed, although there are some serious issues that need to be looked at.
1) Prime Time, as has already been mentioned many times already, AU TZ is screwed. The US players in our mostly EU corp would be screwed. I think the duration of prime time needs to be extended to 8 hours, or just completely done away with and some other solution found.
2) Entosis link. Thise should definately NOT be able to be fitted to any interceptors or indeed anything that is interdiction nullified. I would like to see this thing limited to at the very least cruisers and above. Most of us are already sick and tired of interceptors online, as it stands this only make it worse.
3) AFK cloaky camping needs to be dealt with once and for all. It's an utterly bullsh*t mechanic that adds nothing to the game, and will only be more prevalent with this new sov system.
Otherwise, most of it looks good. keep sticking it to the coalitions and landlords.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
361
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:44:38 -
[1296] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:3) AFK cloaky camping needs to be dealt with once and for all. It's an utterly bullsh*t mechanic that adds nothing to the game, and will only be more prevalent with this new sov system. Why? |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1555
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:48:03 -
[1297] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:I like most of what has been proposed, although there are some serious issues that need to be looked at.
1) Prime Time, as has already been mentioned many times already, AU TZ is screwed. The US players in our mostly EU corp would be screwed. I think the duration of prime time needs to be extended to 8 hours, or just completely done away with and some other solution found.
2) Entosis link. Thise should definately NOT be able to be fitted to any interceptors or indeed anything that is interdiction nullified. I would like to see this thing limited to at the very least cruisers and above. Most of us are already sick and tired of interceptors online, as it stands this only make it worse.
3) AFK cloaky camping needs to be dealt with once and for all. It's an utterly bullsh*t mechanic that adds nothing to the game, and will only be more prevalent with this new sov system.
Otherwise, most of it looks good. keep sticking it to the coalitions and landlords.
you do realise that without porous borders, that systems can be protected 20 jumps away with large areas of space only occupied with ratters and bots? Interceptors, enforce local residence and defence, as they penetrate the border systems.
but of course you do, hence you don't want interceptors to disturb the peace and quiet, and therefore your proposal to castrate the changes.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Snoodaard Thrasy
Yulai Guard Yulai Federation
34
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:48:42 -
[1298] - Quote
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:3) AFK cloaky camping needs to be dealt with once and for all. It's an utterly bullsh*t mechanic that adds nothing to the game, and will only be more prevalent with this new sov system. Why?
If you plan to take space, you plant a load of cloaky campers to bring down the index. The bullshit mechanic being that it's not counterable by reasonable standards (unless being forced to put in valuable pvp defense time for someone who is likely afk is considered worth while gameplay). |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30742
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:49:17 -
[1299] - Quote
Make it fun. Give Recons a bonus to cycle time on these things.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Erasmus Grant
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:50:06 -
[1300] - Quote
Just moving to sov null, I like the propose changes except the Primetime. I love it instead if we could blow things up or some how send troops into the station.
The new mechanic changes makes us think more strategically about the battle-space and how we deploy and use forces. Using sub-capitals to fixate the enemy force and send the capital to stomp. I like the idea of not having at one point for a system.
If it is going to be a constellation battle their should be a constellation perks for owning a whole constellation. There should be more structures , assets, and customization to place them to introduce a fog of war in the mix.
I do not think anything less than a battle-cruiser should be able to use the Entosis Link therefore preventing frigates 'r us. T2 should be only allowed on supers and titans.
There should be some pew pew involve on structures maybe first having to go through a shield or some armor depending on the station type to expose hacking points.
What do you mean by remote assistance? Logi, boost, remote sebo, and etc?
You do hurt mercs, but help renters.
I am honestly not sure how a command nodes in another system determines who owns or controls a system.
Reduce or get rid of the jump fatigue if you are using a jump bridge.
If the Null sec empires are the player version of NPC empires give them the power to be such so a true sandbox can be achieve. Developers are there to make those things happen, if it is possible with reasonable moderation. |
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
398
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:52:11 -
[1301] - Quote
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:3) AFK cloaky camping needs to be dealt with once and for all. It's an utterly bullsh*t mechanic that adds nothing to the game, and will only be more prevalent with this new sov system. Why?
Because it's a pisspoor griefing tool that discourages people from undocking and doing things in space, while the griefer incurs zero risk while he's afk all day long.
You know this, the arguments for and against have been going round and round for ever and I'm not going to get sucked in to another one.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Kilab Gercias
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:52:11 -
[1302] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
1) Prime Time, as has already been mentioned many times already, AU TZ is screwed. The US players in our mostly EU corp would be screwed. I think the duration of prime time needs to be extended to 8 hours, or just completely done away with and some other solution found.
Then split the Timezones in your Coaltion. Lets say you are an Allie with Okay Nummbers in EUTZ faceing your Enemy (nearly even sides) and are outnumbering this enemys in AUTZ
So set your "Primetime" to AUTZ, then the AUTZ is your defens Team. Holding your Sov and fighting LateNight/EarlyMorning fleets from the other Timezones.
And your EU TZ will be your Offens. Harrassing your Enemy in there Primtime. Vola Both timezones has there Role in Sov Warfare.
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
398
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:53:48 -
[1303] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:I like most of what has been proposed, although there are some serious issues that need to be looked at.
1) Prime Time, as has already been mentioned many times already, AU TZ is screwed. The US players in our mostly EU corp would be screwed. I think the duration of prime time needs to be extended to 8 hours, or just completely done away with and some other solution found.
2) Entosis link. Thise should definately NOT be able to be fitted to any interceptors or indeed anything that is interdiction nullified. I would like to see this thing limited to at the very least cruisers and above. Most of us are already sick and tired of interceptors online, as it stands this only make it worse.
3) AFK cloaky camping needs to be dealt with once and for all. It's an utterly bullsh*t mechanic that adds nothing to the game, and will only be more prevalent with this new sov system.
Otherwise, most of it looks good. keep sticking it to the coalitions and landlords. you do realise that without porous borders, that systems can be protected 20 jumps away with large areas of space only occupied with ratters and bots? Interceptors, enforce local residence and defence, as they penetrate the border systems. but of course you do, hence you don't want interceptors to disturb the peace and quiet, and therefore your proposal to castrate the changes.
Nope, I thought it might be nice for other ships to be seen in nullsec occasionally. **** interceptors.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11969
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:55:24 -
[1304] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: you do realise that without porous borders, that systems can be protected 20 jumps away with large areas of space only occupied with ratters and bots?
You do realize that's not how it works? Oh, wait, look who I'm talking to.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Higgs Foton
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:56:04 -
[1305] - Quote
Ah threadnaught!
Personally i find these proposals tedious. Another complicated sov mechanic in which you have to do strange stuff.
I still think the best way sov was done was the old system of having sov tied to the POS. Whoever hold the majority of towers in a system had the sov. Personally i think this needs to return. Maybe with a limit (like you can set max 5 towers to sov in one system, to prevent stuff like 100 towers in a system like 49-U which has a lot of moons) or such.
It was easy. It was fun because you had to DESTROY STUFF to get the sov, and there is much opportunity for rapecage. |
stickz06
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:56:57 -
[1306] - Quote
Kilab Gercias wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:
1) Prime Time, as has already been mentioned many times already, AU TZ is screwed. The US players in our mostly EU corp would be screwed. I think the duration of prime time needs to be extended to 8 hours, or just completely done away with and some other solution found.
Then split the Timezones in your Coaltion. Lets say you are an Allie with Okay Nummbers in EUTZ faceing your Enemy (nearly even sides) and are outnumbering this enemys in AUTZ So set your "Primetime" to AUTZ, then the AUTZ is your defens Team. Holding your Sov and fighting LateNight/EarlyMorning fleets from the other Timezones. And your EU TZ will be your Offens. Harrassing your Enemy in there Primtime. Vola Both timezones has there Role in Sov Warfare.
Assuming this mechanic is staying in the game I think it should be something like: You have 3x 3hour slots for prime time, all slots must be used at any non-overlapping intervals.
This will allow you to specify a larger Prime time window for your main defence, and smaller for TZ's where you are weaker. ( Or make it 3x 2hours or whatever... ) |
Saidin Thor
The Odin Conspiracy
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:57:00 -
[1307] - Quote
After digesting the new proposal overnight, I think it has a lot of potential and opens up some interesting gameplay, but right now I think it's just TOO supportive of disruptive gameplay.
In order to prevent a lot of the griefing that people are predicting, here is what I would propose:
1. Remove IHubs and roll their functionality into TCUs. Any existing upgrades installed in IHubs would be transferred over to the TCU of the system. IHub upgrades will need to be toggleable on/off, since right now some alliance anchor multiple IHubs and switch which one is active based on whether they want a cyno jammer/jump bridge/etc in the system. Since TCUs can be placed anywhere, this forces players who want to disrupt sov to bring a minimum fleet complement to deal with a POS (if that's where the alliance chooses to put the TCU) or to lay the groundwork and defang the POS before they go out to entosis link a constellation. In addition, this removes the useless TCU as proposed in the current system. Without any IHub upgrades, nullsec systems generate no value as compared to NPC null (except for the sov fuel reduction bonus, which isn't relevant to "active" use of a solar system anyways). There are no anomalies that respawn (pirate or ore), so there is no consistent activity you can do in the system outside of belt ratting or belt mining (which you can also do in highsec, lowsec, and NPC null already).
2. Make station services invulnerable to entosis links until the IHub OR the station has been successfully hacked. From the time either of the two structures is hacked until the end of the capture event, station services are then vulnerable to hacking by the entosis link. There should be a minimum barrier to entry and time cost if you want to disrupt sov. With the proposal as is, it's too easy to take an alt in a svipul 200KM off a station and knock out the fitting service (or something else), before anyone nearby can react.
I'm not sure WHAT to do about this, but the 400% bonus to link duration for capital ships seems very harsh and and is a hack-y way of trying to balance the system. Although I understand the danger of just cycling which titan is running the link on the station and using their massive EHP buffer to negate the inability to receive reps, at the same time you're literally self-tackling for a minimum of 4 minutes (two cycles of the module if there wasn't a role increase to duration for capital ships). Maybe a 100% increase in cycle duration (giving you a minimum self-tackle period of 8 minutes--2x4 minute cycles--which is a very significant amount of time for guaranteed tackle, as any capital fisher would tell you) would be more appropriate than 400% if this is a real concern? As it is, capital ships are going to be nigh-useless for capture events. They can't consistently jump between systems via jump drives because of fatigue and jump timers, and even if they try to gate, they're stuck at each capture point for 20 minutes, minimum (not including travel time) even if they cycle a minimum of two times. Moreover, you can literally FINISH incapping a station service before a capital ship can even finish a single cycle to start their link even if your reaction time was zero. That seems...odd. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi
152
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:57:44 -
[1308] - Quote
Quote:Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.
This is a very, very, very bad idea and goes to the heart of all the mistakes you've been making for years in this game.
Risk vs. Reward.
In the first half of the decade, Eve was all about Risk vs. Reward. In the last few years there's been a continual shift away from that. The way you propose this is appallingly risk-free. Eve needs to get back to its roots of the riskiest operations result in the richest rewards and it doesn't get much richer than acquiring new space. If you introduce this module as you propose you'll end up with system/station ping pong which the entire concept of 'sovereignty' was introduced to prevent.
Taking Sov should not be as easy as slapping a cloak on a frig and cruising through enemy space largely ignored, get in to position, hack the structure and then cyno in a massive fleet of ships. Taking Sov should be inherently risky and require careful planning and preparation. Any ship requiring the new module should require an escort to reach its intended target in one piece. Therefore, it should not be able to be fitting on anything smaller than a Battlecruiser and the ship should not be able to fit this module and a cloak at the same time - and I mean not fit, not leave the module fitted and offline so you can switch over when you get there.
One possible solution is to make the fitting requirements for this module insanely high, but then give Command ships, for example, a role bonus that reduces the fitting requirements.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15369
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:58:36 -
[1309] - Quote
So you make so we must rat to secure a system but do nothing about the fact that only 10 pilots can be supported at any one time per system at the very best.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Benilopax
The Ashen Lion Syndicate The Ashen Syndicate
438
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:00:26 -
[1310] - Quote
I like these changes, except for the prime time as others have mentioned, we should never dictate when we can attack an object sure allow the reinforcement timer to be dictated but having a regular four hour window somewhat takes away from the element of surprise in warfare.
I've always said that sov warfare would need to be broken down into spread out objectives so you could say this has been closest to what I believe sov warfare should be.
But we do need more incentive to hold space hopefully that can be added before June.
...
|
|
Xade Mex
Outer Void Applications Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:02:58 -
[1311] - Quote
Okay Few things: First of all i apprichiate the changes they are in general god. even tho some dread pilots (haah phoenix joke is on you) will feel a bit less usefull, but still its okay.
Disclaimer: in the following i will aruge with fountain as regeion since its my home this might or might not be the exact case in other regions but the general problems will be similar ones.
Some things things bug me with the new system:
-for example that 1 person is able to reinforce a system. within 10 minutes.
(if you look all over eve ther is a staggering amount of systems who are unused simply because they are bad or are in a bad position on the map) http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Fountain#sec <- see the right part of fountain? awefull space mostly "J" security class (-0.25 or less). plain unuseable as a ratter except for having escalations there. i would make more money running L4s or Incursions than rat in this space. put up all systems in eve to be albe to sustain atleast 2-3 ratters with 60-90 mil income per hour (i think -0.46 are able to do this)
Now lets keep the idea that it get 100% implemented how you say and nothing changes.
now if some npc-coolguys feel like it they just have to sit in a interceptor and warp to anything in the system and force (2 minutes per t2 link) lets say 20 timers within 1 hour (im not sure if you ahve to stay on grid after the 2 minutes till the timer comes out) PER PERSON. and there is nothing we can do about it but defend the timers 2 days later. it would be a total burnout for all 0.0 alliances. you wanted to make ti less of work of grinding sov. okay. but its allready "work" to keep sov.
The next issue i have is the 4 hour timer is okay. but its not good. alliances are forced from "be able to defend it 24h" to be able to defend it 4 hours against every little guy who comes along. and i hope you ahve been on fleet 4 hours a day for 2-3 weeks. THAT is work.
now take it in the point of fountain:
most of Fountain core is EU TZ. the fountain alliances have the choice to keep it in EU, US or even AU prime. so guess what they will take. US because AU is to low on numbers and EU is the TZ of the enemy. now i as an EU tz player loose my content. because nobody will even have the possibily to attack anything but POS and Pocos during that time. so lets say. give it another option to like "split it in 2" 2x2 hours of vounerable time. we have more to defend. the enemy has more options to attack both sides get more content. otherwise you would force me to leavy my alliance to have content.
Maybe fix this by saying "only battleships are able to use this" or make it a function only Battleships are able to use (Bitches LOOOOOVE battleships) because battleships are currently ****** baldy in the Meta /sorry for swearing but there is no other way to express how it is. Cruisers are 4 times as much used as BS . Great job i would guess? somake it a t1 Battlehip mod or something like that so nobody will be able to speedtank fleets or people . battleships are easy to catch. or make the process longer. something like that (tbh the BS idea is awefull but im desperate about this shipclass)
Next point. Station - Freeport mode.
you punish players for having a station in the system. thats it. litterally. nothign more. just DONT. please. ccp. dont. like no. that idea is awefull. really. no. :D
it seemd like a good idea and it might be way less uses than i expect it to but its a sh*tty mechanic. please dont let this happen. maybe make stations 2 timers nothing more.
Last thing: My hope is that this only the "sov system" revamp not the entire revamp in 0.0 because if you dont change sov to a place where its really worth to be in it then you will have a game thats worse than its now. even now where its easier to hold sov people wont be bothered with it. (BL, PL, etc...) now you make it a really pain in the arese to keep sov. thats propably not the right way to do things. okay making it easiert to attack okay. but dont make it THAT easy. or that awefull to even bother sov. nearly all entitiys who live in 0.0 right now will be like "**** this" and do a PL because even right now SOV is awefull to have. now you make it more than a burden even for the most advanced coalitions. how are those 400 man alliances who have about 1 constallation able to defend a system without burning themselfes out to hell?
thats all i have hope it wont be as awefull as i expect.
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
430
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:03:22 -
[1312] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote: Show me the inty fit that locks at 250. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and tank a sniper Muninn. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and outrun a speed fit PVP inty/pirate frig.
this thing locks at 250 in sniper mode while going 7km/s , and it locks at 190 in speed mode, while going 11km/s (9kms if you dont use snakes+quafe zero) and will speedtank any sniper fit in the game at that speed and range. http://i.imgur.com/t29IKHD.png (yes thats a whole 3 dps at 190km) sniper fits are setup for 100% max tracking, with the smallest guns that will reach optimally at that range + appropriate ammo, hence their lack of targeting range in that graph. If you can find me a fit that tracks anywhere even close to well ill be shocked. It also goes too fast to probe down, and can do the cloak mwd trick so hard its 30km out of a bubble before the MWD stops cycling, so its pretty much uncatchable at gates. Anything that lands on grid that is capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately overheat MWD and burn towards a safe until the no-warp timer runs out (2 minutes max), warp off, cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again. Even with the SLIM possibility of getting caught, its at very most 200 million lost, meanwhile if an alliance loses a fully upgraded ihub, its billions + weeks of effort and freighter convoys. Extremely balanced.
It's still not an interceptor, and will die to an instalocking Svipul like every small ship atm. Anyway, it can't take sov, just initiate the counter, and the locals respond with their own sov beam.
To lose the fully upgraded ihub etc, the attackers need to win 10 plexes, just flying around with the sov beam does nothing. |
GsyBoy
Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:04:26 -
[1313] - Quote
Everything has been said.
Appreciate the efforts but just doesn't hang.
D- please try harder. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11969
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:05:46 -
[1314] - Quote
So here's the part that stuck me the most, after I read it through a few times.
Where are the farms and fields? Where is the reason to actually live there, the reason to jump through all these hoops to plant your flag in a system?
I see a huge buff towards system disruption. Neat. I see the removal of structure grinding. Also nice. But I see little reason to put up with the headache of sov mechanics in the first place.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lowjack Tzetsu
Astrocomical Warped Intentions
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:08:13 -
[1315] - Quote
Well the devs have officially boasted the idea for sov being based on a game of whack a mole. I mean seriously, I don't want to spend the 4 hours of my prime time gaming running around constellations trying to defend sov. Especially when it doesn't take a genius to figure out how bad this idea is when the attacker can generally have zero risk to take someone else's space. Honestly, whats the point of attempting to hold sov. Let the next guy come take it away from you, and then grief him till he quits the game. When he quits the game its more fun for me, and less money for CCP. |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
152
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:08:43 -
[1316] - Quote
Some random thoughts (from somebody not involved into sov so far)
- creative approach, good thoughts were made to make it balanced
- the new mechanics look constructed and artificial, much more like a "game" than a universe simulation ... I'm looking forward to your lore explanation of command node anomalies
- the fixed prime time will make multi-timezone alliances dysfunctional (which is bad IMO), either the prime time is put on the actual prime of the leading majority in the alliance or around downtime together with recruiting some Aussies as police squad
- the new system will make it very easy for random groups to mess with sov / station services to provoke fights or just get some ganks, as a NPSI fan I like that, but ...
- the number of conflicts will increase, but in favor of big blocks. Small entities will likely have a hard time defending their home - with attackers just reinforcing things for the tears or press them into dependency
Question, will NPC corpies be able to aquire a station for their NPC corp?
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Kaiserin Schlacht
Rolling Static Gone Critical
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:09:27 -
[1317] - Quote
I think the general direction of this seems interesting, definitely needs tweaking.
initial reaction ;
The link thing seems rather artificial and strange
The prime time thing even more so
Other than that, seems fine tbh
Just make sure to buff ns income |
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
577
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:11:31 -
[1318] - Quote
I find the lack of dev replies disturbing...
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
152
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:17:20 -
[1319] - Quote
Nami Kumamato wrote:I find the lack of dev replies disturbing... I see this a a good sign, they are busy incorporating the feedback.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Benilopax
The Ashen Lion Syndicate The Ashen Syndicate
438
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:17:42 -
[1320] - Quote
Nami Kumamato wrote:I find the lack of dev replies disturbing...
I also find the lack of CSM posts disturbing...
...
|
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:18:37 -
[1321] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Feel like a lazy way to get around it, and easy solution and the low skill point requierment is a minus in my eyes. I can't say this enought but null sec is not ment for everyon, people who have spent years in null build up a good amount of SP and ships you can't use in High Sec. This sounds like the wrong way to think about it. Sov shouldn't be a "I'm this old in the game, I am entitled to this", but "I'm putting in the effort to capture and hold this", which is a radically different line of thought.
Kah'Les wrote:The idea that people can harass alliances to respond to one simple ship activating his Entosis Link on their structures is just to simple. The harassment line might be slightly over the top, but conversely all you have to do to stop the harassment from triggering an actual flipping by a lone interceptor, all you need is one other entosis link running on the station/TCU/etc. Voila, problem solved.
Kah'Les wrote:We already have have a modual that until recently was only used in null the Doomsday find a way to make it usefull in sov warfare instead of this Entosis Link. I'm cool if people have to risk titans to take systems fast, but risk a 100 mill ship is just to simple for null. I don't think this is the right route to take neither sov nor supers/titans. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi
153
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:22:06 -
[1322] - Quote
There's another major problem with all this. The defence bonuses from Occupancy. It's a fine idea on paper, but not all sov was made equal. Most alliances these days have moon income to provide some form of SRP to their members but the average pilot wants to feel a bit of cash in their pocket, rat in blingy things and generally just feel wealthy. Some systems have rich moons but poor true sec making ratting and mining unattractive so people tend not to live there even though they hold a strategic importance to the Alliance as an organisation.
Similarly, you might have a -1.0 true sec systems that has sanctums coming out of its ears and the biggest, fattest, juiciest rocks anywhere in Eve yet has a lower strategic importance to the Alliance because it's in the arse end of nowhere and has no high-end moons. At an organisational level it's worthless but from a pilot's perspective it's like they've died and gone to carebearing heaven.
Unless you redress the balance of resources to the average pilot in null sec you'll continue to have large swathes of null sec empty thus undermining the entire proposal of occupancy sov. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1555
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:22:27 -
[1323] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: you do realise that without porous borders, that systems can be protected 20 jumps away with large areas of space only occupied with ratters and bots?
You do realize that's not how it works? Oh, wait, look who I'm talking to.
Of course your limitless intelligence, and wide knowledge of game mechanics, ensures the respect of your peers... .? No? Pity.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Aineko Macx
331
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:22:38 -
[1324] - Quote
I'm gonna give CCP the benefit of the doubt and assume that the proposed 250km range Entosis Link implementation was just a random brainfart that will soon be revised by reducing that to something like <50km and disabling the use of MWD while active.
With that out of the way the single worst aspect of the proposal is Prime Time.
Within an alliance, it screws everyone but a single (narrow) timezone. If you don't happen to be in that TZ your value is only to keep indices high and logistics. One thought would be to split alliances by TZ (which is already a bad idea because i WANT to play with EU US and AU tz bros, we don't need more reasons to segregate), but from a strategic point of view, there's no reason an alliance would want to create windows of vulnerability outside their strongest TZ. So that leaves the players to find a completely different alliance that matches their TZ. I would hate to see the concept of multi-TZ (and multi-cultural) alliances die in eve, one of it's most interesting social aspects.
For alliance vs. alliance conflict it's terrible both with equal or unequal Prime Time. When it's equal, a conflict would be just a competition of who could do the most Entosis harassment in the others space, so to tie up ressources. With unequal Prime Time, there's no way a US vs. RUS TZ war would ever go forward.
This is bad and astonishingly short-sighted.
There's also the mentioned imbalance (lack) of risk an attacker must take under the new system, the only marginal benefit of holding sov and yet another nerf to capitals by virtue of losing one more purpose, to name just a few unresolved issues.
iveeCrest: A PHP library for CREST || iveeCore: The PHP library for industrial activities
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
152
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:22:38 -
[1325] - Quote
I know got it, it's so easy ... actually CCP removed sov and make nullsec a big (player) faction warfare area. Everything makes sense now.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:23:25 -
[1326] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:If you are able to camp them in, it does not matter if its 1 or 5 constellation. You dont need, dreads, supers or huge amount of dps to grind the structure. Just 20-50 ceptors to grap 10 points. And they can still do the same to you in return, to **** with your sov.
However, no amount of system design will circumvent the fact that if a significantly larger foe descends on a smaller foe, the smaller one will most likely lose, due to size etc. It isn't, however, a guarrantee with this system, unlike in the current dominion sov system. |
Memphis Baas
187
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:23:51 -
[1327] - Quote
It's also interesting that, despite the arrows pointing to where large scale battles and advertising about fights have resulted in a spike of interest and an increase in the number of players, and despite the fact that their phase 1 changes are at best "whew, we didn't totally crash", they are still moving ahead with this idea of balkanization.
So instead of EVE being unique and attractive for allowing massive battles and allowing the entire Earth to play on one server, they're trying to divide the playerbase into time zones and reduce the size of the alliances that players form. They are moving exactly opposite from what their metrics are showing.
So imagine EVENews24, 2 years from now: a million little news pieces about yet another constellation being taken over by yet another no-name small balkanized group, with battles involving 200 ships vs 200 ships. Big whop. The news will be like WoW news about yet another guild killing some random dragon on their 53rd shard that nobody cares about.
Did WoW ever make it into the news for something its players did? I don't recall ever. WoW makes news for what its developers do. But CCP isn't creating content in EVE, the playerbase is, so if they're moving away from allowing the playerbase to create big news, then I guess they're planning to take on the work of creating newsworthy content themselves, right? |
Gremoxx
The Ostrogoths Curatores Veritatis Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:25:00 -
[1328] - Quote
Some thoughts on this:
AFK / cloaked camps will need to be fixed. Anyone who interrupts industrial / ratting activity is basically declaring war by default, as indexes will drop and capturing the system will be easier.
What ship class can fit this module ?, will the ship be fixed in space or can it move ? can I use interceptor with implants / booster drugs / rigs and do 7000m/s while using this new module?
Region entry systems, high-sec gateways, choke points. Doing ratting / industrial in these systems is near impossible, with the new sov system, you will be defending these systems on hourly / daily bases as indexes will be nill.
Change is good, but this new sov mechanics will need a bit more before it can be bought wholesale.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11969
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:29:07 -
[1329] - Quote
Gremoxx wrote: AFK / cloaked camps will need to be fixed. Anyone who interrupts industrial / ratting activity is basically declaring war by default, as indexes will drop and capturing the system will be easier.
That looks to have been intentional, bro. This is close as you can get to CCP outright stamping approval on cloaky camping.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:30:07 -
[1330] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:... Two disagreements, one point of agreement. Firstly, using an Entosis module to threaten a structure with no intention of actually backing up that threat come the timer is not griefing, it's strategic deceptive play. No different to having one of your alliance's spies suggest a new fleet doctrine to the alliance they are spying on when you have a hard counter to that tactic planned. Your goal is to change your opponent's behaviour to benefit you. Secondly, AFK cloakies in a quiet, underused system shut the system down. AFK cloakies in a busy system merely promote vigilance. I don't flee in terror if I warp into a system and see one war target in local. Your third point is valid.
Then we must agree to disagree on the cost for making such threats. SBU-trolling was a thing, and this new system is going to make it even cheaper, which I dislike. Deception should not be so cheaply achieved.
On the second point, that's why I said in underpopulated systems. In hubs it promotes standing fleets and quick reaction in the even of a hotdrop, but as we all know hub systems are not the best for PvE, due to most anomalies being not worth the time and effort. This is also compounded by the solo nature of most PvE, which drives people away from hub systems due to overcrowding, and because they can run anoms just as well elsewhere. I believe an anomaly rework requiring teamwork could go a great way to mitigate these issues, and would also solve problem number three, namely, the low reward of nullsec PvE. |
|
Vicar2008
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
127
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:33:05 -
[1331] - Quote
Threadnaught Ahoy! |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1555
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:36:38 -
[1332] - Quote
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:... Two disagreements, one point of agreement. Firstly, using an Entosis module to threaten a structure with no intention of actually backing up that threat come the timer is not griefing, it's strategic deceptive play. No different to having one of your alliance's spies suggest a new fleet doctrine to the alliance they are spying on when you have a hard counter to that tactic planned. Your goal is to change your opponent's behaviour to benefit you. Secondly, AFK cloakies in a quiet, underused system shut the system down. AFK cloakies in a busy system merely promote vigilance. I don't flee in terror if I warp into a system and see one war target in local. Your third point is valid. Then we must agree to disagree on the cost for making such threats. SBU-trolling was a thing, and this new system is going to make it even cheaper, which I dislike. Deception should not be so cheaply achieved. On the second point, that's why I said in underpopulated systems. In hubs it promotes standing fleets and quick reaction in the even of a hotdrop, but as we all know hub systems are not the best for PvE, due to most anomalies being not worth the time and effort. This is also compounded by the solo nature of most PvE, which drives people away from hub systems due to overcrowding, and because they can run anoms just as well elsewhere. I believe an anomaly rework requiring teamwork could go a great way to mitigate these issues, and would also solve problem number three, namely, the low reward of nullsec PvE.
Really? That is interesting to hear nullsec PVE as being low reward? Of course Incursions in HS, can be very profitable, iF one excludes, travel time, and waiting for a fleet. But for Null PVE being described as low income is surprising.
We all have assumptions outside null that it is a fountain of wealth, but people also believed that about wormholes, until our c s m actually ran all the sites in a structured manner, and demonstrated the fallicy in that, and CCP listened and made steps to resolve the issue, to ensure balance and fairness. Possibly your Null CSM should do the same and show the true results? So if they are falling short can be resolved?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:36:50 -
[1333] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote: This sounds like the wrong way to think about it. Sov shouldn't be a "I'm this old in the game, I am entitled to this", but "I'm putting in the effort to capture and hold this", which is a radically different line of thought.
It's not about being old it's about attacking a system should mean comidment, risking 100 mill is not comidment. Low SP characters are still usefull in null just look at your own celestis fleet., it's just that the same person who can only fly one cruisers shouldn't have same power as a 50 mill SP character when it comes to flipping systems. Null is or was looked at as the end game, where people would go after familiraze with how the game works.
Lord TGR wrote:[The harassment line might be slightly over the top, but conversely all you have to do to stop the harassment from triggering an actual flipping by a lone interceptor, all you need is one other entosis link running on the station/TCU/etc. Voila, problem solved.
SO fare there is no CD on this, carriers have a 1 hour CD after every jumpe tank to Jumpe Fatugie while this Link can run next door and start over again, every min he can change system or have alt run the link on the other side of the constelation for 4 hours he can change system to try to capture it, The next 20 hours he can harrass other functions in the system. I don't think many people are intrested in playing Cat and Mouse everyday.
Lord TGRI wrote: don't think this is the right route to take neither sov nor supers/titans.
Most supers and titans are in null, they need to be made usefull. Making Doomsday into a kind of Link instead is a more comidtement to taking sov. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:40:24 -
[1334] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:It's not about being old it's about attacking a system should mean comidment, risking 100 mill is not comidment. Low SP characters are still usefull in null just look at your own celestis fleet., it's just that the same person who can only fly one cruisers shouldn't have same power as a 50 mill SP character when it comes to flipping systems. Null is or was looked at as the end game, where people would go after familiraze with how the game works. If the system's contested, then you'll be risking far more than "100 mill", that "100 mill" would be the initial phase, and it's easily preventable if people are committing just "100 mill".
Kah'Les wrote:SO fare there is no CD on this, carriers have a 1 hour CD after every jumpe tank to Jumpe Fatugie while this Link can run next door and start over again, every min he can change system or have alt run the link on the other side of the constelation for 4 hours he can change system to try to capture it, The next 20 hours he can harrass other functions in the system. I don't think many people are intrested in playing Cat and Mouse everyday. Actually no, carriers don't have that long a cooldown, they can jump in far less time than that if they MUST, unless they've already accrued jump fatigue prior to the initial jump-in.
Kah'Les wrote:Lord TGRI wrote: don't think this is the right route to take neither sov nor supers/titans. Most supers and titans are in null, they need to be made usefull. Making Doomsday into a kind of Link instead is a more comidtemnt to taking sov. So to take sov you need a ship which has been built in sov. Great catch-22 there, and not exclusionary of smaller entities. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3943
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:41:17 -
[1335] - Quote
I removed a reply to an edited out part of the quoted post.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30744
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:44:05 -
[1336] - Quote
Ezwal, literally the only CCP person who you know has read the thread in its entirety so far.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Dradis Aulmais
RW Vindicator Connection Phoebe Freeport Republic
713
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:44:46 -
[1337] - Quote
Gremoxx wrote:Some thoughts on this:
AFK / cloaked camps will need to be fixed. Anyone who interrupts industrial / ratting activity is basically declaring war by default, as indexes will drop and capturing the system will be easier.
What ship class can fit this module ?, will the ship be fixed in space or can it move ? can I use interceptor with implants / booster drugs / rigs and do 7000m/s while using this new module?
Region entry systems, high-sec gateways, choke points. Doing ratting / industrial in these systems is near impossible, with the new sov system, you will be defending these systems on hourly / daily bases as indexes will be nill.
Change is good, but this new sov mechanics will need a bit more before it can be bought wholesale.
AFK cloak rubbish again
There are two of them in my home system and it hasn't stopped us from mining or ratting
Or blops or fights or a million other things
If you can't function with the unknow your life must be full of fear
I'm cloaked in your thread, stealing your info.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11972
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:45:33 -
[1338] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Ezwal, literally the only CCP person who you know has read the thread in its entirety so far.
They're volunteers, not CCP staff.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30744
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:47:19 -
[1339] - Quote
Your point? Oh hey, it's also my point.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11972
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:47:42 -
[1340] - Quote
Dradis Aulmais wrote:Gremoxx wrote:Some thoughts on this:
AFK / cloaked camps will need to be fixed. Anyone who interrupts industrial / ratting activity is basically declaring war by default, as indexes will drop and capturing the system will be easier.
What ship class can fit this module ?, will the ship be fixed in space or can it move ? can I use interceptor with implants / booster drugs / rigs and do 7000m/s while using this new module?
Region entry systems, high-sec gateways, choke points. Doing ratting / industrial in these systems is near impossible, with the new sov system, you will be defending these systems on hourly / daily bases as indexes will be nill.
Change is good, but this new sov mechanics will need a bit more before it can be bought wholesale.
AFK cloak rubbish again There are two of them in my home system and it hasn't stopped us from mining or ratting Or blops or fights or a million other things If you can't function with the unknow your life must be full of fear
That's what I love about your PFR guys. You actually have a pair, unlike Provi.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Commander Zakarygobcev
Pulsar Inc. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:47:58 -
[1341] - Quote
Thanks for destroying my caps and then my home, RIP null, good morning tardceptors, ill sit in HS shipspinning till i unistall and just log on the forums to **** talk and say how good it was in the time before the game died, i just hope you kill hs players with no more concord as compensation I would only **** a bunch of those idiots all day in hs with gank ships with bros till they fuckign unsubscribe. Certain guys responding on this post without a fuckign clue on what they are talking about, the best scrubs are the caldari state ******* saying its all good, ******* brats, you fucks at ccp don't seem to use your brains, is it the new employees from RIOT??????? |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:48:47 -
[1342] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote: Actually no, carriers don't have that long a cooldown, they can jump in far less time than that if they MUST, unless they've already accrued jump fatigue prior to the initial jump-in.
My Only point was that this guy can activate his Entosis Link without restrictions. Also try to jumpe 3 times in a row in a carrier. I'm for removing the Entosis Link it brings nothing to the table than a lot of glitchy gameplay.
Lord TGR wrote:So to take sov you need a ship which has been built in sov. Great catch-22 there, and not exclusionary of smaller entities.
Not to take but to speed up sov grinding, the ultimate weapon can shorten the time that being the doomsday.
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:51:30 -
[1343] - Quote
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.
|
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:52:25 -
[1344] - Quote
Imolus wrote:I have a feeling that both developers and players mistakenly put too much emphasis on "planting the flag".
Why people come to null sec? First and foremost, null sec promises greater wealth over empire space. Better rats, better asteroid belts, better moons, better planets even if all of this comes at a price GÇô a risk of getting killed every time you engage in said activities. PvP is another reason why people come to null sec GÇô some enjoy living in a dangerous space, some enjoy being hunters, some simply like unrestricted PvP. A struggle between the above groups of peole is what provides a stage for politics and wars. It's what largely powers industry and market. It forms an intricate machinery. Well being of null sec highly depends on flawless operation of said machinery.
On a most basic level, people form alliances in order to capture resources (ex. R64 moons) which in turn produce income allowing to better equip their people, so they could capture even more resources and have a firepower to fight against other alliances who are doing the same. This is something humans have been doing for centuries. Sometimes wars could be sparked by personal conflicts between leaders of various groups, or due to ideological reasons, but more often than not people fight and kill eachother over resources.
Unfortunately proposed sov changes are laregly neglecting the driving force of the conflict. Instead, we're getting battleground-esque game features with a sole purpose of showing who owns the system.
Stars, planets, moons, asteroid belts should be the object of sov warfare, not random arbitrary structures like tcu's, sbu's, ihubs, etc. Power of the alliance should stem from their ability to controll and extract resources, not from having their name displayed in a solar system information window.
CCP could introduce various grandiose deployable structures, such as Dyson sphere which would require an entire alliance to put a serious effort into building one, but once finished would provide a huge boon, maybe even something that could benefit entire EVE playerbase. For example atrificial wormhole which could be used as a highway between certain systems for commerce or otherwise (think Suez Canal). Controlling such player built assets would be a serious driving force for cooperation and conflict.
I'm really sad that with having all those awesome creative people at CCP we haven't received much sci-fi features since Incarna (even though player base kinda enforced it) GÇô it's either more fancier, better balanced ships, or more fancier ways to blow them up (which isn't necessarily bad).
I'm starting to drift off-topic...
TLDR; Please focus development on conflict over resources instead of arbitrary structures and gimmicky game mechanics.
Nail, Head, Hit, & Done! this makes more sense. |
GREYBOBSASS
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:55:15 -
[1345] - Quote
OMG i can see the mindstorm behind those changes...
anyway subscription cancelled, ccp didnt deliver
no you cant have my stuff
gg gl hf was nice 5 years |
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:56:00 -
[1346] - Quote
Albert Madullier wrote:
sov is only useful for alliance and corp leadership at the moment, ccp need to give us average joes a reason to care,
Then you are in the wrong Alliance :)
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1984
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:01:39 -
[1347] - Quote
AlexKent wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:AlexKent wrote:Entosis Link should only fit to Bcruiser/Bship and above to prevent abuse. It will also give people a reason to fly these over cruiser and frigate hulls.
P.S.
RIP capital warfare, not sure if a bad or good thing.
what you claim is abuse is actually the whole point of the system. You seem to have missed the devblog. If anyone in an uncatchable ship (interceptor) can mess with your sov system there is no point in actually holding sov in the first place. And before GRRR Goons comment, imagine 4 fleets of 250 man people in interceptors you can't catch messing with your space. It will become so frustrating you will either unsub or just move to NPC or lowsec. Not because someone is attacking your space, but because there is no real counter to it and you will be forced to repeat defending your nodes each day every day. Making these modules fit to bigger ship hulls actually generates a fight and give meaning to the already useless battlecruisers and battleships, maybe even blap dreads.
Easily solvable by LIVING in the damm system.
THere willb eno point into FAKE HOLDING sov.. that you do not use. A ceptor that cannot move for 5 min can be killed even by a HAULER!!
If you cannot do that.. you do not deserve to keep the system!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:01:42 -
[1348] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I removed a reply to an edited out part of the quoted post.
Good work, man
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
Black Ambulance
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:02:13 -
[1349] - Quote
Agent Known wrote:Dradis Aulmais wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's what I love about your PFR guys. You actually have a pair, unlike Provi.
Why thank you! One of our campers is a player called "deffently not a cyno alt" who is a know Titan alt Sadly he never brings his toys to play. I though he would since we broke our dreads the other day. It's funny how people complain about AFK cloakers in null where you have the wormhole bears who can't complain about those 5 cloaky proteii (proteus...es?) watching your every move. Solution to AFK cloaking: remove local from sov null. Done!
REMOVE LOCAL from errywhere !! null / HS :) |
Bezdar22
Militaris Industries Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:02:19 -
[1350] - Quote
lemme tell u whats gonna happen...
there will be FW like fights in null sec.. no more big fights.. frig fights every where...
what they dont understand ppl coe top play this game coz they heard of big fights.. thats what make story .. not small fights.
small fights just look cool thats about it..
this game wil become WOW pretty soon.. thats where CCP leading us.
|
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:03:30 -
[1351] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:So someone with 100 titans can jump them in and initiate a sov change instantly/quickly, while the newbies have to do whatever it is you want them to do instead of using the entosis link to grind it out up to 40 minutes?
Yes! You will still have a defensive timer that anyone can show up too. 100 titans alone can't kill any sub cap. The game is not supposed to be fair, noobs are not supposed to be able to do the same as a long time veteran.
|
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:03:39 -
[1352] - Quote
So months of working on ideas for sov and we get an inflated version of faction warfare.....go figure. |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:03:43 -
[1353] - Quote
Jessy Andersteen wrote:Cr Turist wrote:i dont know about everyone else but i guess my question can be broken down into two parts about this patch.
1. if you remove structure grinds and reasons to call CTA's how do you plan on giving a reason for large scale fleet engagements? like it or not a large number of players actually play eve for these kind of ops and you are in essence taking those TIMERS away. yeah we will have POS's but i mean really if your not having a epic fleet fight in defense of your own space or not getting to kick butt with your bros kicking the teeth in of some lowly chumps whos space you want then why log in. to go 60 jumps on a roam and watch 15 cepters fly by you and only killing the one guy who didn't pay attention to his intel channel? Large scale fleet are boring for people and hard for the servers. It have an important COST for CCP and it's unplayable for people: too many lags and each infrastucture improvement just increase the size of the large scale engagement and didn't resolv the lag and stability issue. CCP just want less large scale engagment. And people just want less large scales engagment.
ummm im pritty sure 90% of N3 Prob 75% of CFC and ALL of Brave would not agree with you. but since you come from such a rich large scale pvp alliance i see how you could have a opinion. WAIT |
suicide
The Exit Plan Test Alliance Please Ignore
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:04:41 -
[1354] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:After thinking about the proposed system a little more.
(1) Perhaps instead of setting the vulnerability timer alliance wide allow setting it at constellation / system level.
Reason being that one possible scenario for utilizing this system is that alliance gets as many systems as he has corporations and every corporation is responsible of living in some system - that way if alliance has multiple timezones or different tz corporations it would allow corporation living in particular system or constellation to be "vulnerable" in their prime time.
(2) Possibility for an alliance to increase the population gap for a given system if you are pushing for more condensed corporations.
One possibility would be "inviting" a agent of some kind into a system (in space or in station) which would provide missions to the visitors. Excact mechanics of how to invent is not important, be it then some kind of deployable structure bought from a LP store or some kind of different mechanics altogether. Agent system is only pve system that scales linearly with the population.
I think 1) is an excellent idea because it will allow content for other timezones. We are legitimately having people leaving for EUTZ alliances because of their primetime gameplay needs will not be met.
2) Is an excellent start. If a corporation that owns a station has sufficiently high standings with an NPC corporation then perhaps they could invite in an agent. There needs to be a variety of things that increases the population density of nullsec, not just missions but in relation to mining, NPCing, exploring, and everything else. |
Commander Zakarygobcev
Pulsar Inc. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:04:47 -
[1355] - Quote
suicide wrote:Commander Zakarygobcev wrote:Thanks for destroying my caps and then my home, RIP null, good morning tardceptors, ill sit in HS shipspinning till i unistall and just log on the forums to **** talk and say how good it was in the time before the game died, i just hope you kill hs players with no more concord as compensation I would only **** a bunch of those idiots all day in hs with gank ships with bros till they fuckign unsubscribe. Certain guys responding on this post without a fuckign clue on what they are talking about, the best scrubs are the caldari state ******* saying its all good, ******* brats, you fucks at ccp don't seem to use your brains, is it the new employees from RIOT??????? If you read carefully you will notice that the modules introduced cannot actually destroy your caps or your home. Sitting in high-sec ship spinning and posting seems like a reasonable response to this game change. Your voice will be heard.
Plz if you didn't read like i did you can RFa station in less than one hour, with a 30mk/s 10mn/mwd svipull with a fuckign 50mil ship and force several hundreds to run after the ******* said ship, your smug attitude wont change the fact it will render null inert and a cluster **** of alts in inties and cloaky ships trying to jew the stations, this patch notes is the worst i've seen in years. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
314
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:05:02 -
[1356] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: A ceptor that cannot move for 5 min can be killed even by a HAULER!!
There is no point whatsoever, where they said the new module will stop a ship from MOVING. There are similarities to the bastion module, but the two are not identical!
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30745
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:06:14 -
[1357] - Quote
Bezdar22 wrote:lemme tell u whats gonna happen...
there will be FW like fights in null sec.. no more big fights.. frig fights every where...
what they dont understand ppl coe top play this game coz they heard of big fights.. thats what make story .. not small fights.
small fights just look cool thats about it..
this game wil become WOW pretty soon.. thats where CCP leading us.
EVE is already dependent on fantasy and magic imaginary physics so calm down. You're already playing WoW.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
eiedu
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:06:32 -
[1358] - Quote
I feel that the need for a serious commitment to contest sovereignty is not present in this design. Apart from that, setting a prime-time removes the need for alliances to have members form multiple timezones and alliances won't be able to contest anything out of their own prime-time.
I think this is the sort of design project you'd want to be talking to people who live in nullsec every single step of the way. I don't know what process you guys at CCP use for designing, but this particular project calls for constant user input and review. |
Commander Zakarygobcev
Pulsar Inc. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:08:09 -
[1359] - Quote
It's Eve, Eve has alays been about the numbers and synergy, big alliance win thats how **** goes, a risk adverse sov grind would be a dumb idea, with even dumber repercussions one the ones who live there, can't wait to see if CCP are determined to kill this game. |
Bezdar22
Militaris Industries Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:08:24 -
[1360] - Quote
eiedu wrote:I feel that the need for a serious commitment to contest sovereignty is not present in this design. Apart from that, setting a prime-time removes the need for alliances to have members form multiple timezones and alliances won't be able to contest anything out of their own prime-time.
I think this is the sort of design project you'd want to be talking to people who live in nullsec every single step of the way. I don't know what process you guys at CCP use for designing, but this particular project calls for constant user input and review.
CCP never ask ppl live in null sec .. they just do things what ever they want.. coz they knw the CODE..
MU Q is what our CSM stands for .. they do anything at all .. all these vote and things
|
|
Ambassador Crane
Hellhound Productions
128
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:09:47 -
[1361] - Quote
Not going to slog through 60+ pages to see if this has been asked but curious what effect cloaking will have on the Entosis link. Will you be able to cloak if active? If so, I assume it will deactivate the link. But then I'd ask when? |
Bezdar22
Militaris Industries Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:10:57 -
[1362] - Quote
Ambassador Crane wrote:Not going to slog through 60+ pages to see if this has been asked but curious what effect cloaking will have on the Entosis link. Will you be able to cloak if active? If so, I assume it will deactivate the link. But then I'd ask when?
if that mod active u cant cloak ret remote rep or anything |
suicide
The Exit Plan Test Alliance Please Ignore
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:12:07 -
[1363] - Quote
Commander Zakarygobcev wrote:suicide wrote:Commander Zakarygobcev wrote:Thanks for destroying my caps and then my home, RIP null, good morning tardceptors, ill sit in HS shipspinning till i unistall and just log on the forums to **** talk and say how good it was in the time before the game died, i just hope you kill hs players with no more concord as compensation I would only **** a bunch of those idiots all day in hs with gank ships with bros till they fuckign unsubscribe. Certain guys responding on this post without a fuckign clue on what they are talking about, the best scrubs are the caldari state ******* saying its all good, ******* brats, you fucks at ccp don't seem to use your brains, is it the new employees from RIOT??????? If you read carefully you will notice that the modules introduced cannot actually destroy your caps or your home. Sitting in high-sec ship spinning and posting seems like a reasonable response to this game change. Your voice will be heard. Plz if you didn't read like i did you can RFa station in less than one hour, with a 30mk/s 10mn/mwd svipull with a fuckign 50mil ship and force several hundreds to run after the ******* said ship, your smug attitude wont change the fact it will render null inert and a cluster **** of alts in inties and cloaky ships trying to jew the stations, this patch notes is the worst i've seen in years.
You have become a victim of Ev0lution. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:14:54 -
[1364] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Lord TGR wrote:So someone with 100 titans can jump them in and initiate a sov change instantly/quickly, while the newbies have to do whatever it is you want them to do instead of using the entosis link to grind it out up to 40 minutes? Yes! You will still have a defensive timer that anyone can show up too. 100 titans alone can't kill any sub cap. The game is not supposed to be fair, noobs are not supposed to be able to do the same as a long time veteran. As I said, that's the wrong line of thinking, even if we ignore the fallacy that titans can't kill subcaps, and this won't fly. Try again. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:17:36 -
[1365] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Lord TGR wrote:So someone with 100 titans can jump them in and initiate a sov change instantly/quickly, while the newbies have to do whatever it is you want them to do instead of using the entosis link to grind it out up to 40 minutes? Yes! You will still have a defensive timer that anyone can show up too. 100 titans alone can't kill any sub cap. The game is not supposed to be fair, noobs are not supposed to be able to do the same as a long time veteran. As I said, that's the wrong line of thinking, even if we ignore the fallacy that titans can't kill subcaps, and this won't fly. Try again.
I don't see why thinking someone with 50 mill SP can do more than someone with 5 mill SP is a fals way of thinking. It's all there in the numbers |
Gremoxx
The Ostrogoths Curatores Veritatis Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:17:58 -
[1366] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dradis Aulmais wrote:Gremoxx wrote:Some thoughts on this:
AFK / cloaked camps will need to be fixed. Anyone who interrupts industrial / ratting activity is basically declaring war by default, as indexes will drop and capturing the system will be easier.
What ship class can fit this module ?, will the ship be fixed in space or can it move ? can I use interceptor with implants / booster drugs / rigs and do 7000m/s while using this new module?
Region entry systems, high-sec gateways, choke points. Doing ratting / industrial in these systems is near impossible, with the new sov system, you will be defending these systems on hourly / daily bases as indexes will be nill.
Change is good, but this new sov mechanics will need a bit more before it can be bought wholesale.
AFK cloak rubbish again There are two of them in my home system and it hasn't stopped us from mining or ratting Or blops or fights or a million other things If you can't function with the unknow your life must be full of fear That's what I love about your PFR guys. You actually have a pair, unlike Provi.
OMG !!! Really ! Try another.... o-¦and dont mix CVA with other identities in Provi. I don-¦t mind camping systems and BLOP-¦s them till the end of day-¦s. And its always fun hunting BLOP-¦s teams.
On a more serious note, this is one mechanic that will start to get more serious than before, it will not just be nuisance. |
Commander Zakarygobcev
Pulsar Inc. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:18:56 -
[1367] - Quote
suicide wrote:Commander Zakarygobcev wrote:suicide wrote:Commander Zakarygobcev wrote:Thanks for destroying my caps and then my home, RIP null, good morning tardceptors, ill sit in HS shipspinning till i unistall and just log on the forums to **** talk and say how good it was in the time before the game died, i just hope you kill hs players with no more concord as compensation I would only **** a bunch of those idiots all day in hs with gank ships with bros till they fuckign unsubscribe. Certain guys responding on this post without a fuckign clue on what they are talking about, the best scrubs are the caldari state ******* saying its all good, ******* brats, you fucks at ccp don't seem to use your brains, is it the new employees from RIOT??????? If you read carefully you will notice that the modules introduced cannot actually destroy your caps or your home. Sitting in high-sec ship spinning and posting seems like a reasonable response to this game change. Your voice will be heard. Plz if you didn't read like i did you can RFa station in less than one hour, with a 30mk/s 10mn/mwd svipull with a fuckign 50mil ship and force several hundreds to run after the ******* said ship, your smug attitude wont change the fact it will render null inert and a cluster **** of alts in inties and cloaky ships trying to jew the stations, this patch notes is the worst i've seen in years. You have become a victim of Ev0lution.
Don't speak to me about evolution you're in TEST |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
164
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:19:52 -
[1368] - Quote
As many people I think the prime time feature feels wrong. But I am going to slap on the Devil's Advocate hat. Also, my null sec experience is limited.
One advantage is it allows smaller entities to more effectively defend their space. If you need 24/7 response times you need all TZ covered. This is not reasonable until you get some sort of critical mass. So perhaps this feature will enable smaller alliances, which might produce more targets? Easier to turn that blue to red if they are not in your alliance?
Once you don't NEED these people to cover your off hours your group might be more likely to go off on their own. And this will eventually solve the problem of people feeling they are not contributing to their alliance due to timing. They would probably navigate to alliances that meet their play style and TZ.
Now one problem this can cause, especially with the force projection nerf, is pockets of time. I would imagine the sov would eventually form into pockets of prime time separated by other pockets of time. But once this occurs, large scale/multi TZ alliances will once again be needed if people want to expand. As long as there is a reason to expand :)
Again, I agree, the prime time feature feels wrong, but perhaps it will shake things up. And it seems like that might be needed.
EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
|
flaming phantom
T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan
95
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:19:55 -
[1369] - Quote
So what's the rest of the fleet supposed to do while the couple people are using their entosis mods on the strucutures? Sound even more boring than shooting things, at least that way the entire group was actually doing something. If I rival fleet doesn't show up, then things will get really boring really quick because anyone without an entosis mod isn't doing anything at all
Otherwise, I think the timer sounds good so you don't have to wake up at weird time. You won't be able to help your alliance though if they make a primte time other than your normal time so easily... The command nodes osunds cool in hopes of getting more smaller fights. I could see needing to send reinforcements to other nodes and stuff. sounds fun and dynamic
I do think that splitting control of soverignty and station control is kind of stupid. So in theory it would be possible for some alliance to have soverignty, but not benefit from the ihub or station? I just don't see the point of soverignty other than having your name on the map...woohoo....
All great men have mustaches
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:22:39 -
[1370] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Lord TGR wrote:So someone with 100 titans can jump them in and initiate a sov change instantly/quickly, while the newbies have to do whatever it is you want them to do instead of using the entosis link to grind it out up to 40 minutes? Yes! You will still have a defensive timer that anyone can show up too. 100 titans alone can't kill any sub cap. The game is not supposed to be fair, noobs are not supposed to be able to do the same as a long time veteran. As I said, that's the wrong line of thinking, even if we ignore the fallacy that titans can't kill subcaps, and this won't fly. Try again. I don't see why thinking someone with 50 mill SP can do more than someone with 5 mill SP is a fals way of thinking. It's all there in the numbers Because you're doing the "b-b-but my skillpoints!" fallacy line. SP doesn't mean squat if it's not properly focused. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1986
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:24:55 -
[1371] - Quote
Bonzair wrote:you will loose a lot of people. again.
You mean the same lots of people that would leave when phoebe hit.. and in fact increased the amount of people playing?
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1986
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:26:51 -
[1372] - Quote
flaming phantom wrote:So what's the rest of the fleet supposed to do while the couple people are using their entosis mods on the strucutures? Sound even more boring than shooting things, at least that way the entire group was actually doing something. If I rival fleet doesn't show up, then things will get really boring really quick because anyone without an entosis mod isn't doing anything at all
Otherwise, I think the timer sounds good so you don't have to wake up at weird time. You won't be able to help your alliance though if they make a primte time other than your normal time so easily... The command nodes osunds cool in hopes of getting more smaller fights. I could see needing to send reinforcements to other nodes and stuff. sounds fun and dynamic
I do think that splitting control of soverignty and station control is kind of stupid. So in theory it would be possible for some alliance to have soverignty, but not benefit from the ihub or station? I just don't see the point of soverignty other than having your name on the map...woohoo....
The idea is EXACLTY to not bring HUGE fleets. Will be FAR FAR smarter to spread in several smaller fleets and hit LOTS of places at same time.
That will create opportunities for more fights of smaller size.
Will create MORE fights. Because as of now, if the attacker brings more ships, there is no fight at ALL. With new system, if attackers want to blob they must be very inneficient. If they want to be efficient they risk have one of the fraction of their fleets engaged.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:27:23 -
[1373] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Lord TGR wrote:So someone with 100 titans can jump them in and initiate a sov change instantly/quickly, while the newbies have to do whatever it is you want them to do instead of using the entosis link to grind it out up to 40 minutes? Yes! You will still have a defensive timer that anyone can show up too. 100 titans alone can't kill any sub cap. The game is not supposed to be fair, noobs are not supposed to be able to do the same as a long time veteran. As I said, that's the wrong line of thinking, even if we ignore the fallacy that titans can't kill subcaps, and this won't fly. Try again. I don't see why thinking someone with 50 mill SP can do more than someone with 5 mill SP is a fals way of thinking. It's all there in the numbers Because you're doing the "b-b-but my skillpoints!" fallacy line. SP doesn't mean squat if it's not properly focused.
Ok, I'm gone stop here because you are starting to side track the argument we not talking about where the SP are located or how focused the pilot is, Bottom line is a 5 mill SP pilot can't fly and do as much as a 50 mill SP pilot and he can defently not fly a titan with 5 mill SP.
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.
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
430
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:27:54 -
[1374] - Quote
Commander Zakarygobcev wrote:Thanks for destroying my caps and then my home, RIP null, good morning tardceptors, ill sit in HS shipspinning till i unistall and just log on the forums to **** talk and say how good it was in the time before the game died, i just hope you kill hs players with no more concord as compensation I would only **** a bunch of those idiots all day in hs with gank ships with bros till they fuckign unsubscribe. Certain guys responding on this post without a fuckign clue on what they are talking about, the best scrubs are the caldari state ******* saying its all good, ******* brats, you fucks at ccp don't seem to use your brains, is it the new employees from RIOT???????
little bee, little bee, little bee, little bee always take your medicine, little bee
|
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
759
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:28:08 -
[1375] - Quote
Sadly I think null is about to get the low sec treatment where the greater majority of it is a wasteland that's not worth fighting over and the rest is populated by stabbed shitships orbiting some sort of button. |
suicide
The Exit Plan Test Alliance Please Ignore
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:29:26 -
[1376] - Quote
Commander Zakarygobcev wrote:suicide wrote:Commander Zakarygobcev wrote:suicide wrote:Commander Zakarygobcev wrote:Thanks for destroying my caps and then my home, RIP null, good morning tardceptors, ill sit in HS shipspinning till i unistall and just log on the forums to **** talk and say how good it was in the time before the game died, i just hope you kill hs players with no more concord as compensation I would only **** a bunch of those idiots all day in hs with gank ships with bros till they fuckign unsubscribe. Certain guys responding on this post without a fuckign clue on what they are talking about, the best scrubs are the caldari state ******* saying its all good, ******* brats, you fucks at ccp don't seem to use your brains, is it the new employees from RIOT??????? If you read carefully you will notice that the modules introduced cannot actually destroy your caps or your home. Sitting in high-sec ship spinning and posting seems like a reasonable response to this game change. Your voice will be heard. Plz if you didn't read like i did you can RFa station in less than one hour, with a 30mk/s 10mn/mwd svipull with a fuckign 50mil ship and force several hundreds to run after the ******* said ship, your smug attitude wont change the fact it will render null inert and a cluster **** of alts in inties and cloaky ships trying to jew the stations, this patch notes is the worst i've seen in years. You have become a victim of Ev0lution. Don't speak to me about evolution you're in TEST
Lol, yeah we are all dinosaurs.
I can understand why gameplay that cannot be solved by 800 Megathrons, 200 slowcats, and 200 supers could be confusing to you. The good news is that you won't lose Deklein. The bad news is you might lose some other stuff. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:29:59 -
[1377] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Bonzair wrote:you will loose a lot of people. again. You mean the same lots of people that would leave when phoebe hit.. and in fact increased the amount of people playing?
You sure that's not because CCP made a awesome trailer video and have nothing about the patch to do? At least in my alliance I seen a great dip in activaty since Phoebe and we acually do null stuff.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
544
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:32:31 -
[1378] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote: Besides the name on the map why would anyone choose to move to nullsec? ( Incursions , level 5's already offer more isk per hour than nullsec. ). I think this has been pointed out before and ccp just talks about that most isk comes from nullsec.
I strongly suspect CCP only is looking at isk, not wealth, so the LP "doesn't count" and neither do minerals, etc. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:34:50 -
[1379] - Quote
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. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:40:16 -
[1380] - Quote
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? |
|
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
|
|
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. |
|
AlexKent
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:15:05 -
[1441] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote: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.
True that, but only if we survive MOA's invasion first!
We will survive, worst case scenario we have plenty of npc space in our regions to support us all, as agent missions are infinite and do not require any sort of mind-numbing mechanics to make living there easy. Hell, we might even move to jita for all I care.
On a serious note, I don't find the changes that bad considering what CCP has come up with through the years. Titans were already nerfed into the ground same as supers.
The major flaw of the system originates from CCP's assumption that Sov is currently worth having. It's not. People advocating easy conquering of space have never had any in the first place. They don't know that nullsec ratting makes as much isk/hr as mission running in highsec, they don't know how hard it is to move a freighter to install an ihub upgrade or the pain to keep towers and jump bridges fueled and the list goes on.
Sov needs to be vulnerable to small gangs, but to organized people not just any newbie in a 10m ship with an 80m module stacked on top.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
153
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:15:07 -
[1442] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: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. If the defender has sufficient numbers LIVING LOCALLY then they'll have no problems whatsoever.
If however they're spread out across too many systems then yep they'll be playing cat and mouse across their whole territory for 4 hours every day. Sounds exhausting doesn't it :) |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
271
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:15:25 -
[1443] - Quote
Quote:By spreading objectives across multiple star systems we can provide unique tactical choices tied to the layout of individual constellations. This should help ensure variety and enable more dynamic engagements.
In 2003 Kjartan Pierre Emilsson seeded the New Eden cluster with an algorithm, and the universe came to be.
Is CCP happy with the current Regions and in it the constellations and how they are linked together with stargates, etc for the next sovereignty system ?
Regards, a Freelancer
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
|
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
380
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:15:40 -
[1444] - Quote
I feel like there is going to have to be a list of ships that can't use the new mod or else it is going to be too much of a drag for people.
Mostly all frigates and anything that can warp cloaked or thru bubbles. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3943
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:16:04 -
[1445] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Ezwal, literally the only CCP person who you know has read the thread in its entirety so far. Yes, I have. Every single post. And I am sure some Dev's did as well.
That said, I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules: 6. Racism and discrimination are prohibited.
Racism, gender stereotyping and hate speech are not permitted on the EVE Online Forums. Derogatory posting that includes race, religion or sexual preference based personal attacks and trolling can result in immediate suspension of forum posting privileges.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
194
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:18:37 -
[1446] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Ezwal, literally the only CCP person who you know has read the thread in its entirety so far. Yes, I have. Every single post. My condolences to your sanity points. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11975
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:19:54 -
[1447] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: If the defender has sufficient numbers LIVING LOCALLY then they'll have no problems whatsoever.
If however they're spread out across too many systems then yep they'll be playing cat and mouse across their whole territory for 4 hours every day. Sounds exhausting doesn't it :)
The problem comes from the fact that the income of most systems doesn't even justify more than a couple of people living there.
The nullsec income system has to change along with this.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Zverofaust
Origin. Black Legion.
149
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:20:08 -
[1448] - Quote
Like the changes announced so far - except Prime Time. This is a ******* dumb idea on a variety of levels.
First, this effectively reverses any progress made via the other mechanics towards opening up low-intensity sov warfare to smaller groups and alliances who do not have 24-hour timezone coverage. It effectively makes small-scale wars between two small to mid-sized alliances operating in different TZs impractical if not impossible. Imagine a smaller Russian alliance trying to go to war with a small US alliance; it would be a nightmare of non-action. Or imagine a smaller single-TZ alliance trying to "pester" a larger alliance; while most of the other changes make this possible, forcing that smaller alliance to carry out attacks only during the large alliance's prime time is dumb.
Second, this will alienate a broad spectrum of players who have the misfortune of living in a non-prime TZ, during which the entirety of enemy space is suddenly and magically impervious to attack. At least under the Dominion sov system, all TZs could take part in attacking structures and creating timers. And while the intention of the defender might be to set all those timers to be in a different TZ, in reality the sheer magnitude of workload put on the shoulders of leadership and logistics people in setting those timers meant that inevitably mistakes would happen; some timers may not be set correctly, or other unforeseen events may occur that lead to unexpected clashes, the bread and butter of Eve. Under this new proposal, that simply will not occur. Full automation and limitation to a 4-hour window means entire TZs will be "left out" of any chance of doing anything other than bashing POS.
In short, 4-hour prime time is going to prevent opposing groups from different TZs, particularly among the smaller to mid-sized alliances, from any meaningful conflict with other groups. Large alliances with overwhelming activity in a particular TZ will simply become nigh-impervious to attacks by smaller groups.
On a similar note, I hate timers. I would like to see much more variation added to overall timer amounts.
With that said I have a suggestion tweak to this system:
First, remove "vulnerability window". Allow sov to be attacked at any time, but maintain that the "RF timer" does come out during or near the 4-hour Prime Time window of an alliance. Second, give attackers the ability to influence the length of timers to a small degree, to counter, in part, the amount of control defenders have over it. For example, after a structure is "flipped" and a timer on it given, allow the attackers to manipulate this timer, within say a 12-hour window. This can be done in a variety of methods; further application of the Entosis Link, SBU presence in the system, or spawning special complexes during the RF process that attackers and defenders can have little skirmishes over that gradually push the timer one way or the other - whatever the method, the point is to promote smaller skirmishes in the system between the point the timer is made and when the timer comes out. It also has the effect of promoting actively defending a system, making it easier for attackers to take undefended systems by allowing them to tweak timers to their maximum benefit. The goal is twofold; first to facilitate conflict between groups from different TZs. The second to encourage active defence (stopping this "timer tweaking") while making it still easier to take undefended space ("tweaking" timers to the maximum advantage of the attacker if the defender doesn't bother interfering).
That's my opinion anyway. I like the changes overall but I think Prime Time is huge step backwards even from the Dominion system. |
Kalice Sky
Diplomacy in Space
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:20:40 -
[1449] - Quote
Certainly lots of concerns listed by folks that should be addressed / explored. That said, these changes sound cool. Just reading this got me excited and start considering leaving WH space and coming back to Null. I'm certainly game if there is going to be smaller more active faster paced territory combat. I really like the constellation dynamics and the entosis module concept though I think it needs a few more iterations for reasons already stated.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1987
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:20:59 -
[1450] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote: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?
that is exactly the point.. my dear lost one. They are NOT there anymore.. and that is exactly the problem CCP is trying to solve. Thank you very much for proving my own point.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
784
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:21:43 -
[1451] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote: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. What "visceral brawls" have you ever had with or against Interceptors? Its tedious bug-hunting of cowards who do not want, and absolutely wont give you a fight. You form up, spend half an hour getting to them, and then they are gone in apuff of smoke. No fight, no kills, no point. It will be a miserable, soul-destroying existance.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10038
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:22:07 -
[1452] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote: 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".
This prove my point. Fun "for you" maybe. But for tohers (like me), that set time is useful. Mainly because "honey, do you need me to do anything? I got a fleet in an hour" lol. fun for me is being able to play without a ticked of female clinging to my back like the Banshee.
I never had that small gang, casual, quick fight mentality and never will. EVe already has multiple spaces for that (NPC null, low sec, wormhole space), trying to make null do that is a mistake.
Quote: 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.
i heard that all thetime in 2009. People were so tired of pos grinding that Dominion sounded like a good deal.
It's like Battlestar Galactica. "This has happened before, it will happen again" lol.
Quote: If you see a way in which it can, however, now'll be a good time to point out specifics.
That's just it, talking about specifics in a case where the entire idea (Sov) may be fundamentally flawed in the 1st place is futile. it's not the details, the the entire rationale behind the changes that need re-thinking.
|
RadiantShadow
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:23:03 -
[1453] - Quote
I can't tell if you are stupid or ...
It won't make nullsec system ownership more desirable, it will make it POSSIBLE for smaller independent corps. Who really wants to pay for a game then pay some other player to RENT in the game they are already paying for.
I applaud CCP, and yes I have lived in high sec, wormholes, renter null and sov null.
**** renter rules. F all that.
yogizh wrote: Personally I see this progress (?) towards greater chaos that will generate random battles of unorganized small groups for some time before we all realize that lowsec should be the place for this kind of thing, small entities have nothing to gain by holding sov compared to staging in NPC null or lowsec, where they can use agents and have all their members comfortably packed in one station making them sweet sweet LPs.
I realize there will be tweaks to this (June is months away now), but this concept won't make nullsec system ownership more desirable. The effort fending off various trolls attacking systems, capturing those anoms, upgrading systems (good luck with freighter convoys small alliances).
Instead of giving the players something to look forward to, your are opening Pandoras box full of big nasty surprises. Remember the last one ? With the jumpdrives ? Coalitions still work, renting is still a thing, no new entities entered nullsec sov. Only fools and people who don't know much about sov can be happy about this.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1987
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:23:21 -
[1454] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: If the defender has sufficient numbers LIVING LOCALLY then they'll have no problems whatsoever.
If however they're spread out across too many systems then yep they'll be playing cat and mouse across their whole territory for 4 hours every day. Sounds exhausting doesn't it :)
The problem comes from the fact that the income of most systems doesn't even justify more than a couple of people living there. The nullsec income system has to change along with this.
CCP can ONLY solve the economic part AFTER they have changed the sov system. Not the other way around. Otherwise if they increase drastically the income without even knowing how big, spread or concentrated alliances will become, will be impossible for them to hit a correct spot on the economy.
It is a price that has to be paid. A small period where economic gains will not cover the needs.
"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
1560
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:24:37 -
[1455] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: If the defender has sufficient numbers LIVING LOCALLY then they'll have no problems whatsoever.
If however they're spread out across too many systems then yep they'll be playing cat and mouse across their whole territory for 4 hours every day. Sounds exhausting doesn't it :)
The problem comes from the fact that the income of most systems doesn't even justify more than a couple of people living there. The nullsec income system has to change along with this.
Well do as corbexx did for wormhole space, independently quantify the actual figures based on facts rather than assumptions, and have your CSM representative present these FACTS to CCP for evaluation.
If your contention is true, and a good argument is made beyond "I want more money! " then you may meet with success.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
153
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:24:44 -
[1456] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: If the defender has sufficient numbers LIVING LOCALLY then they'll have no problems whatsoever.
If however they're spread out across too many systems then yep they'll be playing cat and mouse across their whole territory for 4 hours every day. Sounds exhausting doesn't it :)
The problem comes from the fact that the income of most systems doesn't even justify more than a couple of people living there. The nullsec income system has to change along with this. I kind of agree although knowing the exact amounts of isk flowing in and out of null alliances coffers is not my strongest suit - But yeah phase 3 I presume :) |
Erasmus Grant
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:25:12 -
[1457] - Quote
There should be a thing on eve bet to see how long it will take this to reach a 100 pages |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
400
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:26:01 -
[1458] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote: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.
Yeah, you'll get to use T2 frigs as well. specifically interceptors.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11976
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:26:26 -
[1459] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:[ CCP can ONLY solve the economic part AFTER they have changed the sov system. Not the other way around.
The prospect of it being simultaneous has escaped you.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10039
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:28:47 -
[1460] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:TL;DR this new system will fail for the same reason Dominion did, you can't herd cats. I don't see how this system'll make nullsec have fewer coalitions than it does today, considering the main reason we have 2 coalitions today is that the main way to actually win a war is to stuff as many nerds in as powerful a ship as possible into a single system. This system does away with most of that, and puts more focus on small, nimble fleets running around, which I'd postulate will turn into a lot of smaller, but more fun and intensive engagements. And more coalitions, because not everyone in today's coalitions will be able to deal with eachother now that the threat of The Other Coalition keeping them in line.
The opposite will probably happen. Stuffing people into a system work and spawned mega-coalitions. Now you need to do that in multiple systems at once. The best way to do that is HAVE A SUPER-MEGA COALITION lol.
It's because of a facet of human nature. People mistakenly believe human nature is about fighting. It's not, it's about surviving and succeeding, fighting is just a tool, like cooperation and politics. If cooperation offers more benefits that conflict, people cooperate, which is why changes CCP thought would create more conflict created more PEACE instead.
It's basically a corollary of Malcanis' law, the more you try to break up the big groups, the more reason the big groups have to exist.
If the past is any kind of predictor, This will be the same (bookmark this post so we can talk about it in July).
|
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1561
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:29:27 -
[1461] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:[ CCP can ONLY solve the economic part AFTER they have changed the sov system. Not the other way around.
The prospect of it being simultaneous has escaped you.
The prospect of actually doing the work to show what is actually available as income seems to escaped you. Until you can prove you live in a neglected area of space with hard figures, you cannot just expect CCP to turn on the tap. Take note of a good example that worked. And proved that factual reasonable discourse has the desired effects.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11976
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:29:42 -
[1462] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: If the defender has sufficient numbers LIVING LOCALLY then they'll have no problems whatsoever.
If however they're spread out across too many systems then yep they'll be playing cat and mouse across their whole territory for 4 hours every day. Sounds exhausting doesn't it :)
The problem comes from the fact that the income of most systems doesn't even justify more than a couple of people living there. The nullsec income system has to change along with this. I kind of agree although knowing the exact amounts of isk flowing in and out of null alliances coffers is not my strongest suit - But yeah phase 3 I presume :)
Liquid isk is not the solution either. The bounty system is a failure, it does nothing but decrease in value with inflation, exacerbating the "I have to farm even more!" problem that so often leads to burnout and abusive afk farming schemes. (or worse, renting)
LP, or some such mechanic, is the way forward.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:30:04 -
[1463] - Quote
This proposal strikes me as a convoluted and artificial change, using cheap rehashed faction warfare mechanics, with null sec indexes from a long time ago.
This isn't honest development work, it barely rates as "rebalancing", it looks lazy and slapped together. Then polished with the wrong oil.
The changes are convoluted, because they force us to play a certain way: No longer can the CFC impose it's will with 1,000 megathrons, nor PL, strike fear into a sov holders heart with its super caps. No, now we must run around in interceptors and cruisers and engage in fights with similar ships in honorable brawl in some artificial node after we missed catching that last interceptor because CCP cares not about the relative advantages of living in the UK with a low ping vs being on the wrong side of the planet on ancient copper wires. We then dismount from our puny steeds after four hours of toil fending off the heathens looking for giggles, good fights and tears and mount up our trusty dusty mining ships to maintain the ancient honourable industry index which actually only measure rocks shot with a mining laser. So instead of grinding EHP to capture a system, or defend it via removal of an SBU, I now grind rocks for some minimal returns after refining to keep an index up to make my systems more secure? What do I get for my troubles, my sweat? A 25% POS fuel bonus and if I am lucky my ihub didn't explode. What else? Slightly better PI, yeah, doesn't count towards holding the system. Better ratting? Hi-sec incursions are more viable and worthwhile. The rocks I grind aren't hugely better than hi sec once we factor in risk. Actual productive industry is better, but who cares? It doesn't count to holding sov. Meanwhile, my trustiest and mightiest battlesteads spin forlornly in station unloved by CCP, because battleships and capitals seem to lack a real role in this Brave Rehashed World.
What if I want to phone a friend, because I can't cover the local front and the wormhole at the back door? Nope, friends in other alliances are of minimal help against a troll ceptor or some of the outlandish Svipul fits floating around, plus they can't entosis the station or whatever, because screw you blue list is CCPs thought pattern.
This seems to me to be that unfortunate child from another relationship who expresses recessive alleles on the M1CR gene, who also appears to have a neurodevelopment disorder, who may have placed undergarments on their head, doused in flammable liquids and they are running around, playing with matches.
Then there is the prime time. If there is one aspect that is artificial it's this. Existing timers allow the attacker to control when they 1st attack, timing after that is the defenders advantage. This new change to me feels like CCP didn't get have enough fun trolling us AUTZ folks a week or 2 ago trying to do hardware stuff. Now they see fit to largely deny us sov content.
Finally, what is it about smaller gang fighting that CCP is promoting here? Why is it better? Beyond a server load question, why do you absolutely demand we fight this way to control null sec? Small gang stuff happens in null sec already and has meaning in wormholes and Low sec? If i wanted to play that way, I would have moved there already.
The TL:DR of this is: Make the industry index more inclusive, holding sov needs to be worthwhile if you are going to pump up the risk this much, remember there are timezones beyond the 5 hours either side of Iceland, try talking to sov holders and finally, perhaps go back to a drawing board, these changes are just not good enough.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10039
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:32:22 -
[1464] - Quote
RadiantShadow wrote:I can't tell if you are stupid or ...
It won't make nullsec system ownership more desirable, it will make it POSSIBLE for smaller independent corps. Who really wants to pay for a game then pay some other player to RENT in the game they are already paying for.
Wrong. The small group will still have 2 bad options:
Rent from someone stronger
Or
Sieze a small piece of null and become content/fodder for everyone looking for a fight, which is fun if you are looking for a fight but sucks if your trying to earn isk for PLEX and more ships lol.
Renting is caused by the value of the solar system, not how you take the solar system.
This new system will pull a Dominion and strengthen already existing big groups who can adapt to the changes more easily than new/small groups can form. Winter June is coming. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
236
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:32:42 -
[1465] - Quote
Eli Porter wrote:Arrendis wrote: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? ACR+RCU Harbinger, because ACR+RCU maller reaches 4.4k PG.
Dude, that is a whole lot of your tank being sacrificed to get that PG. That leaves you 1 free slot between Lows and Rigs. DCU II and pray? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11976
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:34:07 -
[1466] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: The prospect of actually doing the work to show what is actually available as income seems to escaped you.
You've been shown it before, and you ignored it then too. Keep on wallowing in that ignorance.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:34:07 -
[1467] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
CCP can ONLY solve the economic part AFTER they have changed the sov system. Not the other way around. Otherwise if they increase drastically the income without even knowing how big, spread or concentrated alliances will become, will be impossible for them to hit a correct spot on the economy.
It is a price that has to be paid. A small period where economic gains will not cover the needs.
A period when everybody looking forward to make money, and I mean "troopers" not alliances farming r64s nor elitist guys, aka pay for plexes, skills and ships will go back to highsec as running incursions or even lvls4 will be far better sources of income. Even a six year old child could realize that the same space with the same rewards but with much more harassing and difficulties to live on it is gonna be a failure because of primal logic. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
153
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:34:26 -
[1468] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:No longer can the CFC impose it's will with 1,000 megathrons, nor PL, strike fear into a sov holders heart with its super caps. No, now we must run around in interceptors and cruisers and engage in fights with similar ships in honorable brawl in some artificial node after we missed catching that last interceptor because CCP cares not about the relative advantages of living in the UK with a low ping vs being on the wrong side of the planet on ancient copper wires. We then dismount from our puny steeds after four hours of toil fending off the heathens looking for giggles, good fights and tears and mount up our trusty dusty mining ships to maintain the ancient honourable industry index which actually only measure rocks shot with a mining laser. So maybe Goons have too much Sov to effectively hold at the moment and need to downscale? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30748
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:35:35 -
[1469] - 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. Maybe it's that I'm a vet, but I thought the fun was in th[OH GOD THE BEES I'M ALLERGIC]
Erasmus Grant wrote:There should be a thing on eve bet to see how long it will take this to reach a 100 pages Forum usage metrics show a threadnought rebalance is needed. In true CCP fashion, a posts-per-page increase to 100.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
238
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:37:01 -
[1470] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well do as corbexx did for wormhole space, independently quantify the actual figures based on facts rather than assumptions, and have your CSM representative present these FACTS to CCP for evaluation.
If your contention is true, and a good argument is made beyond "I want more money! " then you may meet with success.
If you don't think Mynnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnna did this, you're nuts. CCP's acknowledged the problem more than once, they just don't have the solution yet. |
|
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:38:13 -
[1471] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Behr Oroo wrote: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. If you make your prime the SAME as the enemy then you will get ROLFSTOMPED! If you set your prime to ANY time other than your REAL prime you will not be able to defend and any small group will defeat you.
Not true. A small corp can set their time at same as a big block alliance. If you know you cant defend cause you will get blobbed. Then go threaten their space. They will have to defend, unless they wish to just swap space. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
271
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:39:04 -
[1472] - Quote
Will it be possible to contest an NPC entities sovereignty claim over a system, be it in Empire space or in 0.0 space ?
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1561
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:39:06 -
[1473] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well do as corbexx did for wormhole space, independently quantify the actual figures based on facts rather than assumptions, and have your CSM representative present these FACTS to CCP for evaluation.
If your contention is true, and a good argument is made beyond "I want more money! " then you may meet with success.
If you don't think Mynnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnna did this, you're nuts. CCP's acknowledged the problem more than once, they just don't have the solution yet.
The question is, did the data justify increasing income, If as you say he did this, then the conclusion would be that it did not. There are countless ways to make minor adjustments.
One does wonder why it is not possible to provide such generous SRP and fly supercarriers on the alliance payroll, in other areas of space. The income comes from somewhere.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:39:43 -
[1474] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:This proposal strikes me as a convoluted and artificial change, using cheap rehashed faction warfare mechanics, with null sec indexes from a long time ago.
This isn't honest development work, it barely rates as "rebalancing", it looks lazy and slapped together. Then polished with the wrong oil.
The changes are convoluted, because they force us to play a certain way: No longer can the CFC impose it's will with 1,000 megathrons, nor PL, strike fear into a sov holders heart with its super caps. No, now we must run around in interceptors and cruisers and engage in fights with similar ships in honorable brawl in some artificial node after we missed catching that last interceptor because CCP cares not about the relative advantages of living in the UK with a low ping vs being on the wrong side of the planet on ancient copper wires. We then dismount from our puny steeds after four hours of toil fending off the heathens looking for giggles, good fights and tears and mount up our trusty dusty mining ships to maintain the ancient honourable industry index which actually only measure rocks shot with a mining laser. So maybe Goons have too much Sov to effectively hold at the moment and need to downscale?
Not really, it will all be timed to USTZ or EUTZ, I mean goons really only hold a lot of sov in 3 regions, Deklein, Vale and Pure Blind, elsewhere it's just the odd system.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
AlexKent
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:41:02 -
[1475] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:No longer can the CFC impose it's will with 1,000 megathrons, nor PL, strike fear into a sov holders heart with its super caps. No, now we must run around in interceptors and cruisers and engage in fights with similar ships in honorable brawl in some artificial node after we missed catching that last interceptor because CCP cares not about the relative advantages of living in the UK with a low ping vs being on the wrong side of the planet on ancient copper wires. We then dismount from our puny steeds after four hours of toil fending off the heathens looking for giggles, good fights and tears and mount up our trusty dusty mining ships to maintain the ancient honourable industry index which actually only measure rocks shot with a mining laser. So maybe Goons have too much Sov to effectively hold at the moment and need to downscale?
Maybe we should drop all of it and move near your highsec mission hub. That would be fun. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
238
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:42:06 -
[1476] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Arrendis wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well do as corbexx did for wormhole space, independently quantify the actual figures based on facts rather than assumptions, and have your CSM representative present these FACTS to CCP for evaluation.
If your contention is true, and a good argument is made beyond "I want more money! " then you may meet with success.
If you don't think Mynnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnna did this, you're nuts. CCP's acknowledged the problem more than once, they just don't have the solution yet. The question is, did the data justify increasing income, If as you say he did this, then the conclusion would be that it did not. There are countless ways to make minor adjustments.
From what CCP's said in the past, it did. They just haven't decided to figure out how to improve the situation. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30748
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:43:57 -
[1477] - Quote
It disturbs me to see the use of broad usage statistics to make balance decisions and also validate them.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1561
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:44:07 -
[1478] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Arrendis wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well do as corbexx did for wormhole space, independently quantify the actual figures based on facts rather than assumptions, and have your CSM representative present these FACTS to CCP for evaluation.
If your contention is true, and a good argument is made beyond "I want more money! " then you may meet with success.
If you don't think Mynnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnna did this, you're nuts. CCP's acknowledged the problem more than once, they just don't have the solution yet. The question is, did the data justify increasing income, If as you say he did this, then the conclusion would be that it did not. There are countless ways to make minor adjustments. From what CCP's said in the past, it did. They just haven't decided to figure out how to improve the situation.
Well if it is so unbalanced, and they see the need to resolve the matter, one would hope it is high on their list of priorities, and a justified goal for research and resolution. Hopefully this new structure will give more tools and opportunities.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6164
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:44:53 -
[1479] - Quote
So basically the only tweak I can spot being needed right off the bat is to either:
1: Keep the (short) range the same between the T1 and T2 Entosis links, forcing those wishing to capture in close. 2: Make the fitting requirements such that you can't quite manage to mount it on a frigate hull.
Not really a biggie, although it's a shame that the general population still hasn't figured out how to deal with interceptors yet
Those most worried about kiting interceptors just need to keep in mind that although a module you can mount on a ceptor may have incredibly long range... that doesn't mean your ceptor can target that far.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
240
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:46:44 -
[1480] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:One does wonder why it is not possible to provide such generous SRP and fly supercarriers on the alliance payroll, in other areas of space. The income comes from somewhere.
Ah, but you see, now you're conflating alliance income and player income. Alliance income comes from things like moon goo (which, in theory, could be mined and towered by a corporation of 1 guy, but that doesn't scale well up to 12,000 people trying to make money that way for themselves), and rental income - which doesn't even come from the space you're in, but the space other people are in.
I mean, let's face it, rental income is (like all rental income in the real world, up to and including property taxes) basically just extortion: 'give me money or we kick you out'. Now, the intention is that the renter is getting something for their money (as in the real world, like how property taxes often cover the costs of municipal services like fire, schools, police), but you're still not looking at money that's coming from the efforts of individual players and flowing into their pockets.
SRP doesn't come from ratting taxes.
|
|
Good Apollo BS4
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:46:45 -
[1481] - Quote
Think that the sov laser should slow a ships max speed by 50% to avoid roaming bands of ceptors being the new meta. |
Harrison Tato
Yamato Holdings
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:48:38 -
[1482] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:CCP, can you please address the point to living in null sec?
You can shoot other players without CONCORD destroying you?
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1561
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:49:03 -
[1483] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:One does wonder why it is not possible to provide such generous SRP and fly supercarriers on the alliance payroll, in other areas of space. The income comes from somewhere. Ah, but you see, now you're conflating alliance income and player income. Alliance income comes from things like moon goo (which, in theory, could be mined and towered by a corporation of 1 guy, but that doesn't scale well up to 12,000 people trying to make money that way for themselves), and rental income - which doesn't even come from the space you're in, but the space other people are in. I mean, let's face it, rental income is (like all rental income in the real world, up to and including property taxes) basically just extortion: 'give me money or we kick you out'. Now, the intention is that the renter is getting something for their money (as in the real world, like how property taxes often cover the costs of municipal services like fire, schools, police), but you're still not looking at money that's coming from the efforts of individual players and flowing into their pockets. SRP doesn't come from ratting taxes. That does seem logical, and may well be accurate, hopefully CCP have all the data to make valid decisions, and As mentioned above, I wish you well if it is required.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Igor Nappi
Perkone Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:52:20 -
[1484] - Quote
I find it hard to believe that 0.0 income is too low considering there's currently people who are willing to pay somebody else for the right to use 0.0 systems.
Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
240
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:53:10 -
[1485] - Quote
Harrison Tato wrote:Aryndel Vyst wrote:CCP, can you please address the point to living in null sec? You can shoot other players without CONCORD destroying you?
You can in low-sec and NPC null. So why hold sov? |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
242
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:54:23 -
[1486] - Quote
Igor Nappi wrote:I find it hard to believe that 0.0 income is too low considering there's currently people who are willing to pay somebody else for the right to use 0.0 systems.
There's low-income people in the US voting Republican, too - just because people do it doesn't mean they're smart to do so. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30752
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:57:08 -
[1487] - Quote
Renters are paying for the stability and protection. And like Arrendis said, there's an element of value at play. 10 billion ISK a month is worth different things to different people.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1561
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:57:24 -
[1488] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Igor Nappi wrote:I find it hard to believe that 0.0 income is too low considering there's currently people who are willing to pay somebody else for the right to use 0.0 systems. There's low-income people in the US voting Republican, too - just because people do it doesn't mean they're smart to do so. All these are possible, but there is no substitute for independent hard, public, data. And if it exists, it certainly is not public. If it is shown to be disfunctional, then all areas of space should back you.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
271
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:01:03 -
[1489] - Quote
Quote:Although reinforcing of Sovereignty structures may only occur during the owning allianceGÇÖs prime time window, station services can be disabled at any time through use of the Entosis Link for between 5 and 20 minutes (depending on occupancy levels).
I would like the CSM 9 and X candidates view on this please in the Assembly Hall
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
668
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:01:19 -
[1490] - Quote
AlexKent wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:No longer can the CFC impose it's will with 1,000 megathrons, nor PL, strike fear into a sov holders heart with its super caps. No, now we must run around in interceptors and cruisers and engage in fights with similar ships in honorable brawl in some artificial node after we missed catching that last interceptor because CCP cares not about the relative advantages of living in the UK with a low ping vs being on the wrong side of the planet on ancient copper wires. We then dismount from our puny steeds after four hours of toil fending off the heathens looking for giggles, good fights and tears and mount up our trusty dusty mining ships to maintain the ancient honourable industry index which actually only measure rocks shot with a mining laser. So maybe Goons have too much Sov to effectively hold at the moment and need to downscale? Maybe we should drop all of it and move near your highsec mission hub. That would be fun.
It looks like most of your PvP chaps are already in hisec!
There is no issue with Goons, they have a great location and should easily deal with this, the good space is going to be kept by the big boys and big fights will happen around them. Its all that unused space that will see some changes as existing groups pull back to what really matters and what they can hold onto.
In the poor systems you will find system with no sov claimed, ninja POS's, then a death star next to a TCU, lets see a Trollceptor do that with a T1 Entosis Link, does anyone think their comments through?
TZ issues, well I can get friends to help me or even hire mercs, if I was a merc I would be looking at this thinking perhaps in 0.0 we can make ISK on people who want help claiming systems, WH's for the win... There will be a need for different TZ groups if you want to be on the offensive, I think AU TZ people are going to become very valuable. The TZ issue is not really an issue, as there will be entities with different vulnerabilities all over the place.
One of my friends suggested that use of systems improves its truesec to a max of -0.3 and of course capped to -1.0 and I really think that is a good idea, because while I disagree with people saying level 4's in hisec are better I do hear their point of view and accept that null does need buffing in terms of income.
Oh and please for the love of Eve give back anomalies that need to be scanned down for miners.
I noticed someone trying to make it so expensive, like put the Entosis link in a Marauder or something like that, or make it cost 500m well how the hell can the small entity keep at a guerilla war for space a bigger entity does not really want if I keep having to wear them down with bling kills, that really had to come from a FA player fat with moon goo, facepalm...
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
Poultergoose4
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:01:29 -
[1491] - Quote
Overall I like the ideas proposed.
Personally I would prefer if the module couldn't be used on anything smaller than a BC, to try and bring in the bigger ships - would negate having ishtars/tengus etc just kiting around, sure they might get stopped at a few of the points and caught but there's a lot less risk.
EDIT: Or reduce the t2 module... 20k to 250k does seem like a huge jump up, why not 30k for the t2? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30752
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:01:44 -
[1492] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Arrendis wrote:Igor Nappi wrote:I find it hard to believe that 0.0 income is too low considering there's currently people who are willing to pay somebody else for the right to use 0.0 systems. There's low-income people in the US voting Republican, too - just because people do it doesn't mean they're smart to do so. All these are possible, but there is no substitute for independent hard, public, data. And if it exists, it certainly is not public. If it is shown to be disfunctional, then all areas of space should back you. It's mutually beneficial. Mutually symbiotic. Whatever. Large groups are employing themselves as protection-for-hire, and renters are employing themselves as industrialists or miners.
The ownership of the space is switched from the irl arrangement of hired security, but that's the only difference, and it's required by the game mechanics for the relationship to exist.
There are other groups who more closely resemble hired security, who don't own the space they fight in, but both arrangements operate under the same basic principle. It's incorrect to vilify sov-holding hired security over the other type.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
155
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:01:58 -
[1493] - Quote
AlexKent wrote:Maybe we should drop all of it and move near your highsec mission hub. That would be fun. OMG I got threatened by a Goon, my world has ended.... how many friends are you gonna need to bring in order to blob one market alt that never undocks lol |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10043
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:02:41 -
[1494] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:It disturbs me to see the use of broad usage statistics to make balance decisions and also validate them.
I'm troubled by that too. Like the population one, i know I contributed to that because I moved 2 cyno alts into null so I could move loot with my Panther now that the Archon got nerfed (lol). More characters in null doesn't mean a healthier null, it means for some reason their are more characters there.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10043
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:04:19 -
[1495] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:So basically the only tweak I can spot being needed right off the bat is to either:
1: Keep the (short) range the same between the T1 and T2 Entosis links, forcing those wishing to capture in close. 2: Make the fitting requirements such that you can't quite manage to mount it on a frigate hull.
Not really a biggie, although it's a shame that the general population still hasn't figured out how to deal with interceptors yet
Those most worried about kiting interceptors just need to keep in mind that although a module you can mount on a ceptor may have incredibly long range... that doesn't mean your ceptor can target that far.
Sensor Boosters. Signal Amplifiers. Whatever the name of the rig that boosts targeting range. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30752
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:04:39 -
[1496] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Rain6637 wrote:It disturbs me to see the use of broad usage statistics to make balance decisions and also validate them. I'm troubled by that too. Like the population one, i know I contributed to that because I moved 2 cyno alts into null so I could move loot with my Panther now that the Archon got nerfed (lol). More characters in null doesn't mean a healthier null, it means for some reason their are more characters there. It guarantees / means that balance decisions are out of touch.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Rothar Luke
Have Guns Will Travel SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:05:30 -
[1497] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Whatever the result of the changes is, it is probably going to heavily affect EVE Online for the years to come. The bad stuff:
- Yay! Brave Collective will pick an US timezone and thanks to your new system, ensure that EU and AU get no chances to defend their space EVER. At least, with the current system we had the opportunity to actively prevent the first attack... Now all is left is the defense of station services, very exciting.
- This new system is definitely interesting, but the benefits of holding sov are almost non-existant. And you should really consider making grinding the industry index easier, its way too hard atm.
- There is no word about a rewamp of sov upgrades. The Quantum Flux Generator for instance, does it work at all? Does it really generate WHs constellation wide?
- In general, why tie sov defense to the system index without revamping it first? Lots of things in anom PvE and Mining are broken in null.
- Jump bridges should also be disabled through the entosis link. Repairing and grinding them is a pain, and disabling / restoring this capabiltiy is inherently tied to sov battles.
- The defender should be notified at the beggining of the first module cycle, not the beggining of the second cycle. By the way, I hope that the notification is made alliance-wide, not just for the holding-corp, or tied to specific rights.
- What about alliance logos? Sure you took nice examples with custom alliance logos, but the reality is that none has been added for months (a year?) now. There is another way of displaying your mockup of the new sov UI on the top left corner, and its three generic alliance logos...
- A highslot module? Yay, more power to ships with utility highs! i.e... All drone boats! Ishtar Online is still a thing apparently. In all seriousness, that's a highly arbitrary way of making some ships more viable than others. Please reconsider.
The good stuff:
- The enthosis link is a really cool idea!
- The need for the owning alliance to be there is a nice touch!
- You cannot just steamroll sov with a bunch of super caps jumping at 0 of a structure.
- There will be work to do for everyone! While the Big Guns fight, intys will also have to catch other frigates equiped with Enthosis links.
- No more grinding!
- The use of the constellation landscape is very cool!
Questions:
- What happens if a leave the range of the enthosis link mid-cycle? And what if I go back to the correct range before the end of the cycle?
So yeah.. Overall, I'd say that its good system, even though it still has its flaws... Which is the point of something open to player feedback.
This pretty sums up what I had thought. Mainly the first point. Alliances might push all the vulnerability onto a particular timezone, leaving out everyone else. For example, Leaving it to the Americans, where the EU and other timezones won't get to defend their space. However, it'll also be hard for small alliances with most of their members in a particular timezone, like EU, to attack other alliances, whom have their timer to be set for their timezone. Please look at this and reconsider.
Also, what will the the requirement for Super Carriers and Titans as a result of all this?
I also think the bonus difference between the Tech one and tech two variants of the Entosis links is huge, and should be reduced. Also, what's stopping a single player with a frigate just running out and starting to knock out all the Ihubs and TCUs, station upgrades, etc. solo? They can harass the enemy very easily. Should be made harder and requiring an actual force and preplanning to start the assault.
I personally think that JBs should be left alone, so you can take them out with normal weapons. It'll allow small groups to hurt hostile alliances using small groups of bombers. |
Roxy Heart
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:06:23 -
[1498] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Anhenka wrote:Is the solution to just "go find another alliance"? Yes. Go find another alliance that actually plays actively during the same time as you. I'm pretty sure this sort of balkanization/fracturing of massive blocs is ENTIRELY THE POINT.
Erm I actually really like the fact that my relatively small corp is made up from people across 4 continents. The whole one shard for the whole game is a selling point for EVE. Forcing stupid time zone mechanics on people and telling them to find new people to play with if they don't like it is kinda dumb. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30753
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:07:52 -
[1499] - Quote
I'm wondering if removing the shooting requirement is supposed to synergize with future nerfs to drones, which are the only ammo-free / resource-free source of DPS in the game.
Or this could just be a really bad move for making sov and ownership games require even less ammo and resources.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10044
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:09:50 -
[1500] - Quote
Igor Nappi wrote:I find it hard to believe that 0.0 income is too low considering there's currently people who are willing to pay somebody else for the right to use 0.0 systems.
This is the general misunderstanding. Null income isn't too low. It's too low to be worth the effort, too low to use yourself so you rent it out to people with lower standards of income while you do other things like blitzing lvl 5 missions or running faction warfare alts or running a high sec mission farm or blitzing high sec regular or burner missions or things like this in low sec with cheap Attack Battlecrusiers.
I can go to null and make 90 mil an hour with a Rattlesnake ratting anoms that is in danger from roaming gangs and wormhole raiders or I can a whopping 4 mil less per hour and stay in the safety of high sec. My 5 bil isk Vindicator I use for high sec incursions makes WAY more than 90mil per hour btw.
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
157
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:11:01 -
[1501] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:So basically the only tweak I can spot being needed right off the bat is to either:
1: Keep the (short) range the same between the T1 and T2 Entosis links, forcing those wishing to capture in close. 2: Make the fitting requirements such that you can't quite manage to mount it on a frigate hull.
Not really a biggie, although it's a shame that the general population still hasn't figured out how to deal with interceptors yet
Those most worried about kiting interceptors just need to keep in mind that although a module you can mount on a ceptor may have incredibly long range... that doesn't mean your ceptor can target that far. Sensor Boosters. Signal Amplifiers. Whatever the name of the rig that boosts targeting range. Boosts them to about 150.
Countered by a sensor damp forcing them to come within bonused web ranges. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2823
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:11:11 -
[1502] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Renters are paying for the stability and protection. And like Arrendis said, there's an element of value at play. 10 billion ISK a month is worth different things to different people. And here I thought 0.0 was full of risk....
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
682
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:11:49 -
[1503] - Quote
Worrff wrote:Jessy Andersteen wrote:And people just want less large scales engagment. Wrong. A LOT of people love them. I'm sorry, what? There are masochists who ENJOY 10% tidi?
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10044
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:12:36 -
[1504] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:So basically the only tweak I can spot being needed right off the bat is to either:
1: Keep the (short) range the same between the T1 and T2 Entosis links, forcing those wishing to capture in close. 2: Make the fitting requirements such that you can't quite manage to mount it on a frigate hull.
Not really a biggie, although it's a shame that the general population still hasn't figured out how to deal with interceptors yet
Those most worried about kiting interceptors just need to keep in mind that although a module you can mount on a ceptor may have incredibly long range... that doesn't mean your ceptor can target that far. Sensor Boosters. Signal Amplifiers. Whatever the name of the rig that boosts targeting range. Boosts them to about 150. Countered by a sensor damp forcing them to come within bonused web ranges.
Countered by even more ceptors, or just leaving that system and spamming the ones around it.
This will not turn out how you think it will lol.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
157
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:13:52 -
[1505] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:So basically the only tweak I can spot being needed right off the bat is to either:
1: Keep the (short) range the same between the T1 and T2 Entosis links, forcing those wishing to capture in close. 2: Make the fitting requirements such that you can't quite manage to mount it on a frigate hull.
Not really a biggie, although it's a shame that the general population still hasn't figured out how to deal with interceptors yet
Those most worried about kiting interceptors just need to keep in mind that although a module you can mount on a ceptor may have incredibly long range... that doesn't mean your ceptor can target that far. Sensor Boosters. Signal Amplifiers. Whatever the name of the rig that boosts targeting range. Boosts them to about 150. Countered by a sensor damp forcing them to come within bonused web ranges. Countered by even more ceptors, or just leaving that system and spamming the ones around it. This will not turn out how you think it will lol. So more ships wins in eve, wow that's a shocker.
Also an atron at 0 with a defensive link counters as many intys as you want to kite around outside of frigate gun range.
If you have empty, idle systems surrounding it during your primetime then they're not actively used space are they |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1690
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:16:26 -
[1506] - Quote
A multitude of the #'s are pretty wrong. By wrong I mean clearly disproportionate to how much effort defenders have to put in vs random reaver/inty gangs. This heavily favors larger alliances with squads and the ability to run 3-4 interceptor fleets at a time. It also heavily favors attackers griefing smaller alliances out of their stations through freeport/hellcamp/shutting down the entire region.
You have a scenario here where any big player can blow out a smaller alliance from an entire region inside the weekly cycle most people login. Do you really want to chain people to their space as part of an EVE job or do you want to spread it out a bit so they have time to mount an effective response? One of the good things about Dominion SOV is that it makes it take approximately a week to punt someone from a single area much less an entire region. This gives slightly more weekly/casual players the time to react and participate in their defense.
I would suggest making the freeport after a 2nd timer and in general making sure things aren't "dead" after a single reinforcement fight. This is going to make the meta just a big hammer against random parts of space and watching anyone small get obliterated as a past time.
All of the timers probably need at least a doubling as well. There is really no incentive to hold SOV for defense bonus's if we are talking about adding 20 minutes to a cap. The rest of the indexes need to matter. The fact that there is almost 0 Industry indexes ground up as a regional whole is pretty telling. Mining needing fixing is another whole blog though.
This does nothing to make those very "buffer zones" referred to in the blog any better. The reason they are buffer zones is not because they are some EHP buffer. I have no idea why Fozzie is referring to them that way but that is a dramatic misunderstanding of why they exist. They are total crap space with no real ability to be upgraded, generate income, or provide any real ability to support someone living there. They are the EVE equivalent of flyover states that you only transit to get somewhere good.
Finally, I would probably reduce the beacons to 3. Since this is tunable fairly easily, I would assume, you can start by breaking up the fights into 3 areas and seeing what impact that has. 5 is strongly biased against smaller players or those that don't want to have EVE by a job more than it already is.
Summary: This is so weighted to attacking and not the defenders I do not believe it will promote the real growth and sandcastle building you want. Instead it means anyone organized, big, and with manpower is going to grief the living crap outta smaller players. Reavers were already pretty laffo, but this is going to stick it into overdrive. Not the fight promoting overdrive either but the AFK cloaking until you have an opportunity to grief kind. You are making the same mistake you made with non-fight promoting siphons.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
158
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:18:14 -
[1507] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Some systems are only worth their moons meaning there are no players in them doing active things, hence most systems in null are empty.
Exactly, those ones are gonna get flipped every 2 days by bored roaming inty gangs, the actively used space can be defended.
Working as intended? |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10044
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:19:42 -
[1508] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Countered by even more ceptors, or just leaving that system and spamming the ones around it.
This will not turn out how you think it will lol.
So more ships wins in eve, wow that's a shocker. Also an atron at 0 with a defensive link counters as many intys as you want to kite around outside of frigate gun range. If you have empty, idle systems surrounding it during your primetime then they're not actively used space are they
That sounds great on paper. lets bookmark this discussion and see how it really plays out?
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1561
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:20:52 -
[1509] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Some systems are only worth their moons meaning there are no players in them doing active things, hence most systems in null are empty.
Exactly, those ones are gonna get flipped every 2 days by bored roaming inty gangs, the actively used space can be defended. Working as intended?
Will the new modules be able to flip moon ownership at a later date in some way, without a pos bash? Or are we going to smother them in syphon units? Or will alliances be PAYING renters to occupy those systems?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
682
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:20:57 -
[1510] - Quote
Agent Known wrote:Dradis Aulmais wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's what I love about your PFR guys. You actually have a pair, unlike Provi.
Why thank you! One of our campers is a player called "deffently not a cyno alt" who is a know Titan alt Sadly he never brings his toys to play. I though he would since we broke our dreads the other day. It's funny how people complain about AFK cloakers in null where you have the wormhole bears who can't complain about those 5 cloaky proteii (proteus...es?) watching your every move. Solution to AFK cloaking: remove local from sov null. Done! This again. Wormholes =\= null, there are no cynos in WH, you can close off your neighboors in WH, you have more control over the geography in WH.
Thus, just removing local would be counterproductive
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:21:24 -
[1511] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Some systems are only worth their moons meaning there are no players in them doing active things, hence most systems in null are empty.
Exactly, those ones are gonna get flipped every 2 days by bored roaming inty gangs, the actively used space can be defended. Working as intended?
Don't know if sacrasem or not? But unless there is a quicker way to get sov lvls I say no. |
Benilopax
The Ashen Lion Syndicate The Ashen Syndicate
440
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:21:47 -
[1512] - Quote
Are CCP and the CSM gonna wait until page 100 to acknowledge anything written here?
...
|
Kenneth Skybound
Skyefleet
116
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:21:55 -
[1513] - Quote
I love this whole dev blog!
Looking forward to it! (And thank god for the 4 hour vuln window. Makes playing a game as a game a LOT easier). |
Rammel Kas
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:22:33 -
[1514] - Quote
I'll agree with a fair amount of people who have voiced their concerns about the whole question around WHY we should own the space. Although a linear ISK kick back that some here suggested may not be a complete reward imo. ISK just leads to grinding once you have a system figured out. It has to enable you to have some new kind of fun regardless of the rewards too. Rewards... plural... because it's not always everybody's ideal world to get tied up on any one thing.
I realize of course that CCP Seagull's presentation a year ago hinted strongly that there's going to be new and exciting things like stargates involved after these particular changes. But perhaps we should have some glimpse of how this design ties into that vision to motivate the brains trusts of the alliances to evolve into and start moving.
The whole seeker > drifter build up was engaging enough to excite some speculation. Liked watching that develop.
I'm cautiously optimistic to see how this pans out. |
Noriko Mai
2089
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:24:50 -
[1515] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Some systems are only worth their moons meaning there are no players in them doing active things, hence most systems in null are empty.
Exactly, those ones are gonna get flipped every 2 days by bored roaming inty gangs, the actively used space can be defended. Working as intended? And this increased flipping will then be the "proof" (maybe even with a fancy graph) that null is much more active and that sov war is going on all day long...
Come On Everybody, support Dark Opaque theme
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1482
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:25:07 -
[1516] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote: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.
Why should they axiomatically be at risk? The whole point of nullsec is that risk is provided by the players. If some tiny little alliance hops in a cruiser fleet and nibbles off some forsaken buffer system that nobody cares about from some giant renter empire, why should they be forced to confront some huge risk? That's the controlling alliance's job, and if the system is forsaken and empty then they're not doing their job.
This system is designed to make sure that unused systems are low-hanging fruit. Whether it pans out is another question, but all the people who want there to be some giant barrier to taking an empty backwater are failing to understand that that's one of the fundamental problems with the system we have now.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
158
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:25:13 -
[1517] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:That sounds great on paper. lets bookmark this discussion and see how it really plays out? Feel free to bookmark it if you can't think through the logical train of events - the fact that only one link matters from each side means that you can bring as many interceptors as you want and kite around aimlessly at a range where you are unable to apply any damage to someone who's sitting at zero on the structure with their own defensive link running just leads to a stalemate where one player is cancelling out a whole fleet of kiting ships.
Either they have to engage in a fight to clear the grid of defensive links or they move on to the next system and the one man defence succeeded = system works. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
668
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:25:13 -
[1518] - Quote
Aryth wrote:A multitude of the #'s are pretty wrong. By wrong I mean clearly disproportionate to how much effort defenders have to put in vs random reaver/inty gangs. This heavily favors larger alliances with squads and the ability to run 3-4 interceptor fleets at a time. It also heavily favors attackers griefing smaller alliances out of their stations through freeport/hellcamp/shutting down the entire region.
You have a scenario here where any big player can blow out a smaller alliance from an entire region inside the weekly cycle most people login. Do you really want to chain people to their space as part of an EVE job or do you want to spread it out a bit so they have time to mount an effective response? One of the good things about Dominion SOV is that it makes it take approximately a week to punt someone from a single area much less an entire region. This gives slightly more weekly/casual players the time to react and participate in their defense.
I would suggest making the freeport after a 2nd timer and in general making sure things aren't "dead" after a single reinforcement fight. This is going to make the meta just a big hammer against random parts of space and watching anyone small get obliterated as a past time.
All of the timers probably need at least a doubling as well. There is really no incentive to hold SOV for defense bonus's if we are talking about adding 20 minutes to a cap. The rest of the indexes need to matter. The fact that there is almost 0 Industry indexes ground up as a regional whole is pretty telling. Mining needing fixing is another whole blog though.
This does nothing to make those very "buffer zones" referred to in the blog any better. The reason they are buffer zones is not because they are some EHP buffer. I have no idea why Fozzie is referring to them that way but that is a dramatic misunderstanding of why they exist. They are total crap space with no real ability to be upgraded, generate income, or provide any real ability to support someone living there. They are the EVE equivalent of flyover states that you only transit to get somewhere good.
Finally, I would probably reduce the beacons to 3. Since this is tunable fairly easily, I would assume, you can start by breaking up the fights into 3 areas and seeing what impact that has. 5 is strongly biased against smaller players or those that don't want to have EVE by a job more than it already is.
Summary: This is so weighted to attacking and not the defenders I do not believe it will promote the real growth and sandcastle building you want. Instead it means anyone organized, big, and with manpower is going to grief the living crap outta smaller players. Reavers were already pretty laffo, but this is going to stick it into overdrive. Not the fight promoting overdrive either but the AFK cloaking until you have an opportunity to grief kind. You are making the same mistake you made with non-fight promoting siphons.
First of all without sov I can place POS's around the area no instant report, second thing is that I can make it a pain, put the TCU next to a death star, keep putting up a TCU, you have to be prepared to stick at it if you want space. Hell if one of the big entities came in and took down my system I would just let them get on with it, but when they left back at it. You have to be tenacious, this is the key thing even if you had will power with the current system, you get flattened, with this system being a royal pain in the butt means something.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
179
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:29:03 -
[1519] - Quote
There seems to be a lot of people on this comments section and on the Mittani blogsite saying there is no reason/s to hold null-sec sovereignty. Apparently at the moment there are reasons to hold null-sec sovereignty as the likes of GSF etc still exist.
'Better' ores. 'Better' ice. Titans and 'big fights'. Good ratting opportunities and officer module drops. Level five missions. 'Better' Incursions. Moon mining - loads of revenue. Opportunities to set up renting. Working in 'blue' doughnut areas that are theoretically the safest places in New Eden.
All this stuff and much more that I can't think of is in null-sec and will still be in null-sec after any changes have been made. So what the **** is all this whinging about ? Seems to be some complaining about people possibly being able to disrupt or 'grief' null-sec sovereignty with no clear intention to hold onto the sovereignty they are attacking. **** happens my friends. It was all fine and dandy when null-sec communities took over high sec POCOs and tried to charge silly taxes. You have to take the rough with the smooth. |
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:29:34 -
[1520] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Summary: This is so weighted to attacking and not the defenders I do not believe it will promote the real growth and sandcastle building you want. Instead it means anyone organized, big, and with manpower is going to grief the living crap outta smaller players. Reavers were already pretty laffo, but this is going to stick it into overdrive. Not the fight promoting overdrive either but the AFK cloaking until you have an opportunity to grief kind. You are making the same mistake you made with non-fight promoting siphons
I dont think the horror has set in yet as to what this system means for small "elite" groups and ping-based alliances that relied on one BIG TIMER to bring supers or slowcats to. |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3948
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:32:40 -
[1521] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:ISD Ezwal wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Ezwal, literally the only CCP person who you know has read the thread in its entirety so far. Yes, I have. Every single post. My condolences to your sanity points. I played Call of Cthulhu extensively in the days. My sanity points have been long gone....
That said, I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules: 7. Discussion of real life religion and politics is prohibited.
Discussion of real life religion and politics is strictly prohibited on the EVE Online forums. Discussions of this nature often creates animosity between forum users due to real life political or military conflicts. CCP promotes the growth of a gaming community where equality is at the forefront. Nationalist, religious or political afiliations are not part of EVE Online, and should not be part of discussion on the EVE Online forums.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
162
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:32:55 -
[1522] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Don't know if sacrasem or not? But unless there is a quicker way to get sov lvls I say no. If it's "actively used space" you should be able to defend it within 10 minutes.
If it's a war front, perhaps you might, I dunno call me crazy, stage a defensive fleet nearby to prevent it being flipped straight after you capped it giving you time to raise the indices? |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1988
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:34:36 -
[1523] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Some systems are only worth their moons meaning there are no players in them doing active things, hence most systems in null are empty.
Exactly, those ones are gonna get flipped every 2 days by bored roaming inty gangs, the actively used space can be defended. Working as intended?
hes doe s not get the cocnept that this is the exaclty effect that CCP wants. That huge power blocs forego the unused space.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
683
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:35:49 -
[1524] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Lord TGR wrote: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. What "visceral brawls" have you ever had with or against Interceptors? Its tedious bug-hunting of cowards who do not want, and absolutely wont give you a fight. You form up, spend half an hour getting to them, and then they are gone in apuff of smoke. No fight, no kills, no point. It will be a miserable, soul-destroying existance.
If it takes half an hour to get to the target system, you live too far from the target shstem.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
548
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:38:22 -
[1525] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: hes doe s not get the cocnept that this is the exaclty effect that CCP wants. That huge power blocs forego the unused space.
this is likely, yes
however people keep assuming that it means someone else will move in and get to live there, and keep thinking it means they finally get to have a system for their corp of three semi-literate drunken toddlers
what they do not seem to grasp is that just because i don't feel like going to the effort of owning, say, providence doesn't mean i don't feel like smashing anyone who does try to own it in the face and farming them so brutally it makes PL's treatment of HERO look downright loving
why on earth would we allow you to live when you can't defend yourself and will probably whine impotently about how we're not playing fair and attacking is so hideously overpowered it will be a walk in the park |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
167
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:38:34 -
[1526] - Quote
Karash Amerius wrote:I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.
Love the tears here...great work CCP. Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough.
Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30753
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:40:24 -
[1527] - Quote
Hey all, Fozzie hasn't denied on Twitter that the module doesn't apply at the end of cycle. That would explain why it seems to be possible to break lock and cycle through various means.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
548
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:41:26 -
[1528] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.
Love the tears here...great work CCP. Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough. Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space. why should you get to contest sov without even putting a t1 battlecruiser at risk? the issue isn't being unable to respond to an interceptor fleet, it's that an interceptor fleet has no risk whatsoever to its pilots
if you're too much of a coward to even risk a single t1 battlecruiser you have no business in the big leagues |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10045
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:42:51 -
[1529] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.
Love the tears here...great work CCP. Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough. Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space. why should you get to contest sov without even putting a t1 battlecruiser at risk? the issue isn't being unable to respond to an interceptor fleet, it's that an interceptor fleet has no risk whatsoever to its pilots if you're too much of a coward to even risk a single t1 battlecruiser you have no business in the big leagues
The entosis thing should be restrcited from nullified ships. Meaning you can put one on a t3 unless you use the nullifier sub. People can still put them on the rest of frig hulls but not ceptors.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
311
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:43:29 -
[1530] - Quote
Some interesting discussion and points made here. I am of course ignoring every post that just says "its bad" but rather the ones that explain problems.
I am personally interested in sov mechanics from a game theory perspective. EVE is very unique in that the devs have a very hard time doing anything that will "work" because as people have pointed out, in a sand box we do what ever the **** we want. And unlike other MMOs we are permitted to do that (like massive alliances that you just don't get in other MMOs).
I like the idea that holding a large swath of space is hard without raw numbers. I also like that shooting stuff is about shooting other ships, rather than millions of EHP of something that doesn't move. Freeport sounds like fun, as a WH Nullsec diving could be even more fun.
Currently the biggest complaints seem to be TZ stuff. And we already don't like cepter meta, so don't make more. ( We as in the royal we). And last but not least. Why bother with Sov.
My biggest issue i would have, is why bother. Really rats/mission/mining something got to turn to gold to make it worth while. I mean not everyone is going to want to build supers. As far as i can tell, there really is not much to make sov anything more than a "you see us on the map" kind of epean.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
MajorScrewup
Thundercats The Initiative.
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:43:37 -
[1531] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:There seems to be a lot of people on this comments section and on the Mittani blogsite saying there is no reason/s to hold null-sec sovereignty. Apparently at the moment there are reasons to hold null-sec sovereignty as the likes of GSF etc still exist.
'Better' ores. 'Better' ice. Titans and 'big fights'. Good ratting opportunities and officer module drops. Level five missions. 'Better' Incursions. Moon mining - loads of revenue. Opportunities to set up renting. Working in 'blue' doughnut areas that are theoretically the safest places in New Eden.
All this stuff and much more that I can't think of is in null-sec and will still be in null-sec after any changes have been made. So what the **** is all this whinging about ? Seems to be some complaining about people possibly being able to disrupt or 'grief' null-sec sovereignty with no clear intention to hold onto the sovereignty they are attacking. **** happens my friends. It was all fine and dandy when null-sec communities took over high sec POCOs and tried to charge silly taxes. You have to take the rough with the smooth.
Titans and big fights aren't restricted to null sec Incursions are better in lo-sec as you have the chance of revenant bpc level 5 missions in null sec - not sure as i don't mission run, but seems wrong There are moons in lo-sec too that are good |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
311
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:44:14 -
[1532] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.
Love the tears here...great work CCP. Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough. Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space. why should you get to contest sov without even putting a t1 battlecruiser at risk? the issue isn't being unable to respond to an interceptor fleet, it's that an interceptor fleet has no risk whatsoever to its pilots if you're too much of a coward to even risk a single t1 battlecruiser you have no business in the big leagues The entosis thing should be restrcited from nullified ships. Meaning you can put one on a t3 unless you use the nullifier sub. People can still put them on the rest of frig hulls but not ceptors. Or putting it on costs you nullification?
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
684
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:44:52 -
[1533] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.
Love the tears here...great work CCP. Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough. Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space. why should you get to contest sov without even putting a t1 battlecruiser at risk? the issue isn't being unable to respond to an interceptor fleet, it's that an interceptor fleet has no risk whatsoever to its pilots if you're too much of a coward to even risk a single t1 battlecruiser you have no business in the big leagues
And the interceptors pose no threat as long as you aren't an absentee landlord.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
208
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:45:01 -
[1534] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.
Love the tears here...great work CCP. Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough. Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space.
Agree with your first statement, confused on the second. Why?
Karash Amerius
Operative, Sutoka
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
668
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:45:37 -
[1535] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.
Love the tears here...great work CCP. Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough. Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space. why should you get to contest sov without even putting a t1 battlecruiser at risk? the issue isn't being unable to respond to an interceptor fleet, it's that an interceptor fleet has no risk whatsoever to its pilots if you're too much of a coward to even risk a single t1 battlecruiser you have no business in the big leagues
A person from FA started with the suggestion of requiring a Marauder or carrier to do this, frankly that is stupid, the entire concept is guerilla war, in other words you don't really want that space but I do, I keep nibbling at it until you get bored and ignore me apart from coming in and smashing me to bits every month or so so I have to rebuild, which also answers your other comment.
You liked Waltreipers didn't you, you liked farming IRC didn't you, then what's your issue?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Martin Vanzyl
EVE University Ivy League
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:46:27 -
[1536] - Quote
Entosis Link ranges are stupidly large.
Scale the Entosis Link range. The smaller ship you fit it to, the less range it has. Frig = 5 - 15km Cruiser = 15 - 30km BC = 30 - 40km BS = 50 - 60 Cap = 60 < ....
Etc. Not only will this make a 'logical sense', small comm array on smaller ship means it needs to be closer to link with the appropriate strength to the station's systems etc, it also forces the attackers in closer, where they can be engaged by defenders. Another solution could be to limit the Entosis to BS, cap and super hulls. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
169
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:47:12 -
[1537] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:why should you get to contest sov without even putting a t1 battlecruiser at risk? the issue isn't being unable to respond to an interceptor fleet, it's that an interceptor fleet has no risk whatsoever to its pilots
if you're too much of a coward to even risk a single t1 battlecruiser you have no business in the big leagues If you can't even get an atron to sit at 0 to defend your sov you have no business holding that sov.
Once you get your own frigs there then there's gonna be every chance of a proper fight escalating - or the intys just move on to find some undefended space. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
548
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:47:23 -
[1538] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:And the interceptors pose no threat as long as you aren't an absentee landlord. the interceptors force you to go to the effort of reacting to that interceptor, at which point it buzzes away and starts hitting a system ten jumps away (because it is a sub 2s warping nullified ship) causing a great deal of effort to be expended on the part of the defenders at no cost or risk to the pilot
if it's actually an absentee landlord your t1 battlecruiser is at no risk: but you're terrified of using any ship that could actually get caught and killed if you miscalculate.
if you aren't willing to risk a single ship when you're generating timers you should be in highsec cowering under CONCORD protection |
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
988
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:47:47 -
[1539] - Quote
Benilopax wrote:Are CCP and the CSM gonna wait until page 100 to acknowledge anything written here?
LOL if you think the CSM has any weight in these decisions. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
548
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:48:50 -
[1540] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Once you get your own frigs there then there's gonna be every chance of a proper fight escalating - or the intys just move on to find some undefended space.
there is no chance of a fight with one side in interceptors escalating because interceptors don't take fights
they are cowardships which is why the only people legitimately supporting interceptors being able to create timers are people who want to be in the big leagues but are terrified of ever losing anything so they need their cowardship so they can flee in terror as soon as something lands on grid |
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
169
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:49:37 -
[1541] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:And the interceptors pose no threat as long as you aren't an absentee landlord. the interceptors force you to go to the effort of reacting to that interceptor, at which point it buzzes away and starts hitting a system ten jumps away (because it is a sub 2s warping nullified ship) causing a great deal of effort to be expended on the part of the defenders at no cost or risk to the pilot You imply that you have to cover a 10 system wide area with just one defensive fleet?
That doesn't sound like very active use of your space.
|
Sael Va'Tauri
Morgan Industry
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:50:52 -
[1542] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.
Love the tears here...great work CCP. Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough. Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space. why should you get to contest sov without even putting a t1 battlecruiser at risk? the issue isn't being unable to respond to an interceptor fleet, it's that an interceptor fleet has no risk whatsoever to its pilots if you're too much of a coward to even risk a single t1 battlecruiser you have no business in the big leagues
between 250 to 500 Grid would actually be a pretty good place for the Link. You could drop that on T1 cruisers and T1 BCs if you forgo either some weapons or tank on them, and you wouldn't be able to cram them on anything smaller. A BS would be able to fit them without too much worry about compromise as long as you can spare the high slot.
If someone isn't defending their space, you could roll in with a couple of Mallers and cap out a system pretty quickly, with low risk. However, if someone is defending their space, you're not going to be able to run away terribly fast while also maintaining a low risk setup. |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1167
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:51:12 -
[1543] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote: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. how exactly are you going to warp to a ship going that fast, it takes 10 seconds minimum to probe,warpin, lock target, and activate mod, by that time its already 100km away, no longer in a straight line, so still impossible to track. and the 28 second align time is with mwd on, just shut it off to warp out. (and its 300 sig radius)
correct on the sigRAd. 300m. However, any ship moving directly away from the firing ship will have exactly 0 trasnversal. With a 300m sigRad, the Svipul will evaporate.
Or you can just put an Ibis on the TCU/IHUB/whichever and spam local **** when you turn on your own link, thus stopping all capture progress. Or you could bring something bigger, like, say... a Marauder?
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:52:55 -
[1544] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Some systems are only worth their moons meaning there are no players in them doing active things, hence most systems in null are empty.
Exactly, those ones are gonna get flipped every 2 days by bored roaming inty gangs, the actively used space can be defended. Working as intended? hes doe s not get the cocnept that this is the exaclty effect that CCP wants. That huge power blocs forego the unused space.
Yes, I see you guys want this. But what I see is a lot of small corps being forced to pay "protection" ISK for their systems or their SOV lvl get rested and iHUB destoyed. I see cloaky campers having a even bigger affect on SOV mechanics lowering value of systems so they are easyier to conqer. And good luck you weekened warriors who take SOV and then lose it in 48 house to a big power bloc. I believe this sov change is weaker than the one already in place, this is not the change everyon is waiting for.
This Fozzie SOV (FW v2.0) is just at the moment filled with glitchy mechanics. |
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
693
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:53:04 -
[1545] - Quote
Hidden buff to Minmatar, "the utility highslot race" and drone boats, I lyke it.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30753
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:53:30 -
[1546] - Quote
Entosis for 10 minutes should undock everyone in station.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
548
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:54:11 -
[1547] - Quote
Sael Va'Tauri wrote: between 250 to 500 Grid would actually be a pretty good place for the Link. You could drop that on T1 cruisers and T1 BCs if you forgo either some weapons or tank on them, and you wouldn't be able to cram them on anything smaller. A BS would be able to fit them without too much worry about compromise as long as you can spare the high slot.
If someone isn't defending their space, you could roll in with a couple of Mallers and cap out a system pretty quickly, with low risk. However, if someone is defending their space, you're not going to be able to run away terribly fast while also maintaining a low risk setup.
yeah, this is reasonable: an undefended area can get whacked by cheap, disposable ships but if you try that on inhabited space you'll get whacked and lose your ship
i think the link itself should be more expensive as it's still too cheap, but if you want to try to put sov at risk your ship should at least be at risk as well, and an interceptor is never, ever at risk unless you've had one too many drinks |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno.
4302
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:54:30 -
[1548] - Quote
the blog says the new mod'll have low fitting reqs but it seems like a bit of an assumption it'll be fittable on ceptors? surely the t2 250km version'd be a battleship mod? |
Dirk Morbho
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:55:04 -
[1549] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Entosis for 10 minutes should undock everyone in station.
That's about the only way .EXE would undock on a regular basis.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1692
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:55:38 -
[1550] - Quote
Princess Cherista wrote:Aryth wrote:Summary: This is so weighted to attacking and not the defenders I do not believe it will promote the real growth and sandcastle building you want. Instead it means anyone organized, big, and with manpower is going to grief the living crap outta smaller players. Reavers were already pretty laffo, but this is going to stick it into overdrive. Not the fight promoting overdrive either but the AFK cloaking until you have an opportunity to grief kind. You are making the same mistake you made with non-fight promoting siphons I dont think the horror has set in yet as to what this system means for small "elite" groups and ping-based alliances that relied on one BIG TIMER to bring supers or slowcats to.
This comes up in every possible thread about Null. I will repeat the mantra once more. Any system that allows a small player to "grief" a large bloc will instead be used predominately to grief the smaller players BY the blocs. You can mitigate this but to suggest that blocs are quaking in their boots right now would be hilariously misguided. If you take the time to research you are going to see Dek is the one region in the entire game that is essentially going to ignore this system as every system is populated almost round the clock, and not 1 guy either but many.
Provi might also be an exception. The worst case scenario is some alliances decide to go back to ice-berging and just griefing everyone else. That is the most likely scenario unfortunately. You cannot make it this easy for 100-200 dudes from a bloc to torch entire regions. No one cares about a little guy trying to stick it to the man. They don't. What is going to drive people to ice-berg/quit is blocs sending reavers into their homespace and burning it all to the ground. If this promoted fights it might be one thing, it won't. Faction warfare has proven this point out over and over.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
668
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:55:57 -
[1551] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:And the interceptors pose no threat as long as you aren't an absentee landlord. the interceptors force you to go to the effort of reacting to that interceptor, at which point it buzzes away and starts hitting a system ten jumps away (because it is a sub 2s warping nullified ship) causing a great deal of effort to be expended on the part of the defenders at no cost or risk to the pilot if it's actually an absentee landlord your t1 battlecruiser is at no risk: but you're terrified of using any ship that could actually get caught and killed if you miscalculate. if you aren't willing to risk a single ship when you're generating timers you should be in highsec cowering under CONCORD protection
You don't get it that while there is a griefing element to it, its Eve after all, and why am I not surprised you just focus on that, there is a real need to have the ability to wear people down when you want to take a system, so making it more expensive or using easier to catch ships is just another way to defend your current position. No!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Suede
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:58:13 -
[1552] - Quote
Entosis should be a ship
Entosis should only be brought with a plex
and ccp need a pay rise |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3191
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:59:15 -
[1553] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.
Love the tears here...great work CCP. Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough. Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space. why should you get to contest sov without even putting a t1 battlecruiser at risk? the issue isn't being unable to respond to an interceptor fleet, it's that an interceptor fleet has no risk whatsoever to its pilots if you're too much of a coward to even risk a single t1 battlecruiser you have no business in the big leagues The entosis thing should be restrcited from nullified ships. Meaning you can put one on a t3 unless you use the nullifier sub. People can still put them on the rest of frig hulls but not ceptors. Or putting it on costs you nullification? Its already true that ACTIVATING it costs you nulification. Once on, you cannot warp at all, until you turn it off and the cycle ends.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Pok Nibin
Filial Pariahs
574
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:00:03 -
[1554] - Quote
My. Don't the egos come out in force when the intellectual content is absent? This discussion will be plagued by people whose mentality tries to overlay an old way of approaching EVE upon this more fully developed and comprehensive set of mechanics. That's not surprising, as the present condition lends itself well to goonery and thugs, pushing the more sophisticated and strategic play methods to the sideline. With the new method, the old hammer and tongs, pound things into oblivion and bully the rest method just won't do, and those people are squealing like the proverbial stuck pig.
Not surprisingly, what's behind this noise is the sure knowledge they do possess that their style of play just hit the cutting room floor and of course, being left to think of alternatives their little gray cells have met their match. I'm tempted to say the game of checkers just turned to chess...but saying checkers was what was being played gives that too much credit. Maybe the hippo stomp has been replaced with the ballet. Of course, the head thumping thug would want to "throw up". We expect that from them. They've been that way since kindergarten.
That being said, I'm very impressed with the inventiveness and elegance of this solution to SOV. The simplicity of the solution is what recommends it most highly. It's going to be interesting to learn who develops the expertise the quickest, and it's also going to be fun watching the so-called big dogs of today turning to the whining pups of tomorrow. What do they say? EVE is to feed on tears? Well, we can feed on theirs as well.
The purpose of EVE is to play EVE. We have the name "carebear" for one style of play. The other style is called "ganking" in the wider gaming world. Here, they like to call themselves the "true EVE players." We shall certainly see about that, won't we?
So. Cry on! We love it.
Dont fight it; Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs; You know you want to.
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
335
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:00:20 -
[1555] - Quote
Lister Vindaloo wrote:Exactly, let the TZ of the players decide when they can and cannot contest a timer, not an artificial mechanic that decides when a timer can even exist, let the laws of reality gate the tz's, not a CCP enforced mechanic. From what you have said there is still no purpose to declaring a prime time....
The new mechanic does not allow for this. It's not sufficient to come back and defend a timer; you want and need to be able to counter the initial offensive E-link with a defensive E-link as it happens to prevent a timer in the first place. Otherwise every station and structure in all of null will be in a state of constant reinforcement due to roaming troll gangs.
This is intentional. It's intentional to the design goals that people living in and active during their prime time should be able to trivially defend against troll fleets, while at the same time, with the same mechanic, far flung AFK sov holders can NOT likewise trivially defend against those troll fleets. The entire point is that flipping sov needs to be lol-worthy easy if NO ONE IS HOME.
Given that, it's unrealistic to expect an alliance to field defensive E-links 24/7. "Being home" CANNOT mean having a defensive E-link pilot on 24/7, unless we want to establish a baseline that the only alliances allowed to hold sov are ones large enough to cover all TZ's consistently on a daily basis. That's a pretty high barrier of entry to set. Hence the 4-hour primetime window.
You basically cannot keep the E-link concept intact and NOT have the primetime window. |
Sael Va'Tauri
Morgan Industry
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:01:00 -
[1556] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Sael Va'Tauri wrote: between 250 to 500 Grid would actually be a pretty good place for the Link. You could drop that on T1 cruisers and T1 BCs if you forgo either some weapons or tank on them, and you wouldn't be able to cram them on anything smaller. A BS would be able to fit them without too much worry about compromise as long as you can spare the high slot.
If someone isn't defending their space, you could roll in with a couple of Mallers and cap out a system pretty quickly, with low risk. However, if someone is defending their space, you're not going to be able to run away terribly fast while also maintaining a low risk setup.
yeah, this is reasonable: an undefended area can get whacked by cheap, disposable ships but if you try that on inhabited space you'll get whacked and lose your ship i think the link itself should be more expensive as it's still too cheap, but if you want to try to put sov at risk your ship should at least be at risk as well, and an interceptor is never, ever at risk unless you've had one too many drinks
CCP could also have the link reduce the maximum speed of the ship that is using the link, and potentially warp disrupt it. A 40% (T1) -70% (T2) penalty to speed with warp disruption would be enough to put you at risk for using the link, even in smaller ships. Again, if the space is undefended, who cares if you're pointed and webbed. If you're trying to grief someone, they are going to be able to engage you. BCs and BBs won't care too much about the speed penalty, but the small ships sure would. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:02:40 -
[1557] - Quote
The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
549
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:04:46 -
[1558] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
what makes you think i won't squash you for funsies
we spent three months squashing anyone who dared mine gallente ice in highsec, what makes you think that every shitlord who raises a flag isn't going to look like a nail to swing my massive hammer at |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1167
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:04:50 -
[1559] - Quote
So, I have another idea.
You know how CBCs can fit links but never do? Perhaps only CBCs should be able to fit an Entosis Link. Would give them a purpose in life since they have had no purpose since 2013. They can also fit MMJDs. So bombers? What bombers? I just jumped away. Jumping does not break locks unless you jump out of locking range. vOv
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Suede
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:05:20 -
[1560] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:While the current sovereignty system worked fine for many years, we see the need for a fundamental overhaul. We are excited to present the plans for a new sov system coming early this summer including: 1) No more grinding through hitpoints 2) Meaningful combat events distributed over the whole constellation 3) Space activity results in defensive bonus 4) Designated daily "Prime time" for alliances when their structures become vulnerable Read all about this new sov system, the mechanics and the fine details in CCP Fozzie's latest blog Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two!
Entosis should be a ship
CCP only trying to do what is best for the game as eve online is CCP game to do what they see fit.
and we are only a paying customs paying for a service
CCP need a Pay Rise doing a fine job and they are working hard.
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
171
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:06:56 -
[1561] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
what makes you think i won't squash you for funsies we spent three months squashing anyone who dared mine gallente ice in highsec, what makes you think that every shitlord who raises a flag isn't going to look like a nail to swing my massive hammer at And then 2 days later they just retake it back because you can't effectively defend the whole of nullsec.
Meanwhile all your empty systems are flipped by troll fleets every day because you're too thinly spread. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
803
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:07:13 -
[1562] - Quote
Seriously, this whole interceptor DRAMAQUEEN crap has to stop.
1) Fittings are unknown. 2) If you actually live locally and are active in YOUR 4 hour primetime that YOU DECIDE you'll pop these 100m pinyatas for jollies.
The "trollceptor" indeed, because a simple cerberus wont eat them for funsies in less time than it takes to reload the weapon.
Or you know, the mighty, all impossible to acquire ..... maulus....yup....good thing they're not dirtass cheap. Really dodged a bullet there. |
cpu939
Eternal Darkness. Get Off My Lawn
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:07:22 -
[1563] - Quote
you know i think for a dev blog thread this has the least replies from the devs 4 inc the op and that was in the 1st 5 pages might be good if ccp reply to some of the questions here, you know that thing called good discussion you know you posted it in your blog
we here at CCP believe that Sov is a big deal that deserves to be discussed thoroughly.
questions that has come up a lot (some are paraphrased)
Sov still sucks what are you going to do to make it more rewarding to hold? How do you see this helping the little guy take sov? Why should people hold sov under these new rules? Are command nodes linked to the prime time i.e. 4 hours then its done? Why a freeport mode? Why 250km on the t2 module? What are you plans for supers and titan now? How do you see this new mechanics breaking the existing mega-coalitions? Are you going to change SBU BPO to Ensotis link BPO?, if not what are you doing with the sbu blueprints? What are you going to do about the cloaky campers now that defense is tied into pve roles?
I went over a good few pages and these came up a few times i didn't go over every page but i'm hoping ccp Fozzie or another dev will reply but i'm not holding my breath. more and more i see CCP attitude being we tell you and that is it they are going back to their old ways again.
p.s. vote Thoric Frosthammer for csm. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:07:48 -
[1564] - Quote
Calorn Marthor wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote: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. For the record: When these changes were announced I argued that Nullsec ressource distribution is in dire need of rebalancing. However, we did the test. And it turns out I was wrong. Went to remote nullsec with the goal of trying to set up full T2 production. T2 has the most complicated production chains, so that would be a good indicator to whether it is possible to be self sufficient or not. And we said no matter what happens - we will NOT use jump freighters. We are 2 industrialists with no extra indu alts. We operate equivalent 4 Large Towers for reactions and from time to time some extra small ones to get certain ressources. The operational area is roughly 1 constellation (8 systems). R64s and R32s are traded from our friendly moon overlords who are also happy to buy the final products for their fleets. There is a bit of alchemy involved and in the end we only need to import 1-2 sorts of moon goo from empire. 13 PI colonies produce POS fuel components. Running the thing now since 5 months, production capacity is like 6 T2 cruisers per week (or 25 frigs or a mixture) which is enough to supply a small corporation or alliance. Logistics are easier than expected. We are dependant on empire (no local Caldari Isotopes and several other materials available plus we import all the other ice stuff because no one likes mining), but we only need about 5 trips to empire monthly in a DST. Those are easily manageable since we use wormhole connections. One basically needs ONE dedicated scanner/explorer and will get a decent connection every other day. And getting the scanner is not an issue since exploration easily yields 100-200M ISK/hour while searching for the empire connection. Basically the only downside is that you need to reconfigure the reaction towers all the time. And this is configuration HELL. There is so many little things that make this task incredibly complicated (put nicely: "challenging") that you almost instantly go insane. It needs tons of spreadsheets, container and bookmark systems etc and still you make mistakes all the time and cause inefficiencies. And the ISK gain is less than what you get from running optimized reactions with a dedicated tower for each one. I would have liked to present these results to CCP Greyscale, but sadly he's gone meanwhile... :-/TL;DR: JFs are already unnecessary, people just need to be a bit creative ;-) Could you present the results to the community? Maybe there can be some easy (lol) changes to the POS to make it less of a configuration hell? |
Serene Repose
2328
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:07:52 -
[1565] - Quote
This looks more like a "figure it out as we go" thread than a "discuss the new changes" thread. Not very interesting, but indeed a curiosity.
I see we have the "you know what would make this game perfect?" crowd out in force. Try not to think, you guys.
Stick to something you can do.
Treason never prospers. What is the reason?
Why, if it prospers, none dare call it "treason."
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1172
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:08:28 -
[1566] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
Meh. Large scale stability and stable logistic chains, along with the ability to swamp small enemies with the people they don't need for immediate self defense means that big coalitions are going to come out of this even better than the little guys.
When the bar is lowered to near 0 for taking system, the more force you can apply, the more space you can steamroll in a smaller amount of time. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10046
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:09:24 -
[1567] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.
Love the tears here...great work CCP. Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough. Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space. why should you get to contest sov without even putting a t1 battlecruiser at risk? the issue isn't being unable to respond to an interceptor fleet, it's that an interceptor fleet has no risk whatsoever to its pilots if you're too much of a coward to even risk a single t1 battlecruiser you have no business in the big leagues The entosis thing should be restrcited from nullified ships. Meaning you can put one on a t3 unless you use the nullifier sub. People can still put them on the rest of frig hulls but not ceptors. Or putting it on costs you nullification?
Could live with that yea.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
549
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:09:39 -
[1568] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: And then 2 days later they just retake it back because you can't effectively defend the whole of nullsec.
Meanwhile all your empty systems are flipped by troll fleets every day because you're too thinly spread.
i didn't say take it, i said squash you
i then go off and squash the next guy who thought that empty space meant he could live there and delight in his squeals of rage, and then come back and squash you again once you think you're allowed to live in nullsec
you seem to think that if i can't have it that means you can have it but it is delightful to rip your tiny toys away from you and stomp on them even if they're too cheap and unfun for me to want in my massive toy box |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
674
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:11:05 -
[1569] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
what makes you think i won't squash you for funsies we spent three months squashing anyone who dared mine gallente ice in highsec, what makes you think that every shitlord who raises a flag isn't going to look like a nail to swing my massive hammer at
Well that was hardly difficult was it, all the mining ships of that period had the tank of a wet paper bag, I would like to see you try it now on Skiffs and Procurer fleets, I doubt you will have the same level of success because it is no longer like taking candy from babies...
Yes of course you are going to wield that hammer, but the fun part is that smaller entities will go light, TCU next to a deathstar and some even working together to deal with your hammer, it will be fun won't it?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Joe Themachine
Sleeper Tech. Research Foundation
59
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:12:09 -
[1570] - Quote
For God's sake CCP....sometimes I think you guys want to complicate things just for the sake of complication...All that wont work..just get rid of reinforcement mode, get rid of all time delays, and have it so that if you sit on it for x hours, its yours..done!
why must you complicate things while not achieving your goals?
|
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
336
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:12:12 -
[1571] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote: what makes you think i won't squash you for funsies
we spent three months squashing anyone who dared mine gallente ice in highsec, what makes you think that every shitlord who raises a flag isn't going to look like a nail to swing my massive hammer at
I think we all absolutely expect CFC to scorched earth massive portions of the null map on a regular basis. But since you won't actually be CLAIMING that sov, merely burning it, it's not going to stay fun for very long.
In short, you'll get bored, and go away to burn some other part of the map. And the people who actually live in that region will finally undock and reclaim sov for the other 50 weeks of the year.
It'll be no different than wardeccing a high-sec corp. They'll just dock up for the week or two of your scorched earth campaign in their area, tear down any valuable POS's, and wait it out. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
171
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:12:49 -
[1572] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:i didn't say take it, i said squash you
i then go off and squash the next guy who thought that empty space meant he could live there and delight in his squeals of rage, and then come back and squash you again once you think you're allowed to live in nullsec
you seem to think that if i can't have it that means you can have it but it is delightful to rip your tiny toys away from you and stomp on them even if they're too cheap and unfun for me to want in my massive toy box How do you squash me when my troll fleet is based out of NPC corps in highsec and just roams around every day RFing all your empty systems and never engaging in a fight? In fact, I can pretty much do that solo, I don't even need a fleet :D |
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
698
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:13:11 -
[1573] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Eli Apol wrote: And then 2 days later they just retake it back because you can't effectively defend the whole of nullsec.
Meanwhile all your empty systems are flipped by troll fleets every day because you're too thinly spread.
i didn't say take it, i said squash you i then go off and squash the next guy who thought that empty space meant he could live there and delight in his squeals of rage, and then come back and squash you again once you think you're allowed to live in nullsec you seem to think that if i can't have it that means you can have it but it is delightful to rip your tiny toys away from you and stomp on them even if they're too cheap and unfun for me to want in my massive toy box
you will be too busy defending your own ****. you have more to lose if a station flips. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3191
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:13:50 -
[1574] - Quote
CCP: An idea:
1) Reduce the range and increase the cycle time of the Entosis link 2) Add a bonus to the range and cycle time of the Entosis link to some ship hulls.
Pick hulls that seem to be underutilized. Or perhaps T3's fitted with underutilized sub-systems.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
549
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:13:53 -
[1575] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Yes of course you are going to wield that hammer, but the fun part is that smaller entities will go light, TCU next to a deathstar and some even working together to deal with your hammer, it will be fun won't it? oh dear me a deathstar however will we deal with a single pos we have never managed to take one of those down before
and oh dear me FIVE groups of ten guys each who have never ventured out of highsec and are hilariously incompetent that is so much more fearsome than one of those groups and definitely not an even richer vein of rage that ccp has still not raised you up to our level |
Sar'aina
Kriegsmarinewerft Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:14:04 -
[1576] - Quote
So if my Alliance leader (i love him) decide: US TimeZone go fight, then i'll never gonna do sov pvp again?
(Good to be no Australian this time) |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:14:33 -
[1577] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
what makes you think i won't squash you for funsies we spent three months squashing anyone who dared mine gallente ice in highsec, what makes you think that every shitlord who raises a flag isn't going to look like a nail to swing my massive hammer at
LMAO yes Evilweasel ... I'm sure you and your massive hammer can hold down null sec and keep the shitlords at bay. I'm sure everyone will be too scared to move into null.
Sounds like a lot of fun wardeccing bears and ganking their ice miners. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:14:39 -
[1578] - Quote
What if designating a prime time when these timers exit was automated instead of manually selected by the alliance?
Could there be a formula that determines what four hour window the alliance is active and automatically updates each day based on the previous week or something? That way you would not have to worry about a European alliance setting their prime time for say Australian prime time to meta game around this.
I think there are some pros and cons to such a system, but I believe it is definitely worth discussing. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
549
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:15:16 -
[1579] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:How do you squash me when my troll fleet is based out of NPC corps in highsec and just roams around every day RFing all your empty systems and never engaging in a fight? In fact, I can pretty much do that solo, I don't even need a fleet :D see you've basically proven my point: the people who want entosis on interceptors are the people who are terrified of engaging in a fight
if this system is to provoke fights then inties can't have the link |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:16:31 -
[1580] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP: An idea:
1) Reduce the range and increase the cycle time of the Entosis link 2) Add a bonus to the range and cycle time of the Entosis link to some ship hulls.
Pick hulls that seem to be underutilized. Or perhaps T3's fitted with underutilized sub-systems. It sounds like it would be a 'go T3 or go home' due to how well it would perform compared to other hulls. I don't think that would be a good thing. |
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
551
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:16:48 -
[1581] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:LMAO yes Evilweasel ... I'm sure you and your massive hammer can hold down null sec and keep the shitlords at bay. I'm sure everyone will be too scared to move into null. Sounds like a lot of fun wardeccing bears and ganking their ice miners. could you call yourselves "the honey badger coalition" when you all move into null so we can repeat the last time we squashed a bunch of incompetents like a bug who thought that quantity was quality |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
674
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:18:16 -
[1582] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Yes of course you are going to wield that hammer, but the fun part is that smaller entities will go light, TCU next to a deathstar and some even working together to deal with your hammer, it will be fun won't it? oh dear me a deathstar however will we deal with a single pos we have never managed to take one of those down before and oh dear me FIVE groups of ten guys each who have never ventured out of highsec and are hilariously incompetent that is so much more fearsome than one of those groups and definitely not an even richer vein of rage that ccp has still not raised you up to our level
Aha but then you might get bat-phoned by NCDOT.
You think, you remember that battle in Tribute when NCDOT and allies took down your SBU, well my other main was one of the 300.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
173
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:18:28 -
[1583] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Eli Apol wrote:How do you squash me when my troll fleet is based out of NPC corps in highsec and just roams around every day RFing all your empty systems and never engaging in a fight? In fact, I can pretty much do that solo, I don't even need a fleet :D see you've basically proven my point: the people who want entosis on interceptors are the people who are terrified of engaging in a fight if this system is to provoke fights then inties can't have the link People who don't want interceptors with entosis links are those with huge swathes of unused Sov that won't be able to undock a simple T1 frigate and run their own link from 0km within 10-40mins of receiving an alert.
Sure I'll just be trolling/griefing/strategically harassing a large alliance with just me in my interceptor but the fact they can't turn up one pilot to stop me says alot about what they're doing with all that space. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
338
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:19:04 -
[1584] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:i didn't say take it, i said squash you
What are you going to squash? Small alliances won't drop ihubs or station eggs. They'll have a TCU and a few POS's. When you come through and flip the TCU they'll evacuate any POS's they need to and then log off for a week. You'll "squash" the TCU, maybe explode some POS's (if you REALLY want to commit a fleet to that), and then leave. Next week they'll login, flip your TCU back, and go on with life as normal. Unless CFC plans to go out and defend every single TCU timer in every constellation they "squashed", you'll be nothing more than a minor annoyance a few weeks of the year.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1042
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:19:41 -
[1585] - Quote
Yeah ... what most of the first few pages said.
It is either going to be easy for large alliance to wipe out small attackers OR Small gang will go around flagging up every structure an alliance owns to make them chase their own tails.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
551
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:20:43 -
[1586] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:i didn't say take it, i said squash you What are you going to squash? Small alliances won't drop ihubs or station eggs. They'll have a TCU and a few POS's. When you come through and flip the TCU they'll evacuate any POS's they need to and then log off for a week. You'll "squash" the TCU, maybe explode some POS's (if you REALLY want to commit a fleet to that), and then leave. Next week they'll login, flip your TCU back, and go on with life as normal. Unless CFC plans to go out and defend every single TCU timer in every constellation they "squashed", you'll be nothing more than a minor annoyance a few weeks of the year. i will be content with barring anyone from having any assets more sizable than a single pos with nothing valuable attached to it as they look forlornly at the station they wish they could use if not for the big bad goons |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
75
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:21:51 -
[1587] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote: could you call yourselves "the honey badger coalition" when you all move into null so we can repeat the last time we squashed a bunch of incompetents like a bug who thought that quantity was quality
Oh I dunno that I've ever run into your corp before, but i'll make a note so when we roll into you and watch you dock up cause you don't want your **** pushed in I can remind you of that big hammer you own.
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:22:19 -
[1588] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:The entosis thing should be restrcited from nullified ships. Meaning you can put one on a t3 unless you use the nullifier sub. People can still put them on the rest of frig hulls but not ceptors.
Or putting it on costs you nullification? Could live with that yea. All people would do is carry a Mobile Depot with them and when they arrive at the target system, go to a safe and fit the Entosis Link. I like the idea that interceptors and T3 cruisers should not be allowed to fit them or even have them in their cargo hold at all. I like the idea of the Entosis Link, but it is obvious when it is combined with certain ships or modules - it becomes very broken. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
177
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:23:35 -
[1589] - Quote
Rendiff wrote:I like where they're going with this, but they need to make each system able to sustain the activity of a larger number of players.
If a system can sustain ratting/mining/etc for more players each alliance will require less space, allowing more groups entry into null.
I think this is the part that's missing, tbh. Once this is done, you have completed the trifecta of live where you work, and defend your space with local forces.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Demons Hell
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:23:39 -
[1590] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: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.
Yes 250km in an interceptor IS ridiculous - which is why their slot layouts and fitting attributes don't enable them to be fit to lock that far
2x sensor booster+script range? |
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
551
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:24:13 -
[1591] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote: could you call yourselves "the honey badger coalition" when you all move into null so we can repeat the last time we squashed a bunch of incompetents like a bug who thought that quantity was quality
Oh I dunno that I've ever run into your corp before, but i'll make a note so when we roll into you and watch you dock up cause you don't want your **** pushed in I can remind you of that big hammer you own. ok, good luck with that, see you soon |
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:24:43 -
[1592] - Quote
Summer 2015: our inties and nullified no-commit fits will blot out the sun |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:24:56 -
[1593] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:i didn't say take it, i said squash you What are you going to squash? Small alliances won't drop ihubs or station eggs. They'll have a TCU and a few POS's. When you come through and flip the TCU they'll evacuate any POS's they need to and then log off for a week. You'll "squash" the TCU, maybe explode some POS's (if you REALLY want to commit a fleet to that), and then leave. Next week they'll login, flip your TCU back, and go on with life as normal. Unless CFC plans to go out and defend every single TCU timer in every constellation they "squashed", you'll be nothing more than a minor annoyance a few weeks of the year.
Don't even know how SOV,iHUB and POS work. Good luck making ISK out of a system with no ihub and no sov lvl. |
Sentinel Eeex
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:25:58 -
[1594] - Quote
Ok, the great plan is to turn "EVE Online" into "Roaming Gangs Online".
Got it.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10047
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:28:10 -
[1595] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:i didn't say take it, i said squash you What are you going to squash? Small alliances won't drop ihubs or station eggs. They'll have a TCU and a few POS's. When you come through and flip the TCU they'll evacuate any POS's they need to and then log off for a week. You'll "squash" the TCU, maybe explode some POS's (if you REALLY want to commit a fleet to that), and then leave. Next week they'll login, flip your TCU back, and go on with life as normal. Unless CFC plans to go out and defend every single TCU timer in every constellation they "squashed", you'll be nothing more than a minor annoyance a few weeks of the year. Don't even know how SOV,iHUB and POS work. Good luck making ISK out of a system with no ihub and no sov lvl.
Didn't you know? null sec just bleeds isk out of every oriface. All you gotta do is got to any belt and an Officer spawn is waiting for you, don't even have to shoot it , it will self destruct for you.
-signed, Everyone who has never been to null but thinks everyone in null is rich.
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1739
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:29:05 -
[1596] - Quote
This is not all yet... there still will be Phase Three
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Kyle Meshuggah
No Vacancies
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:29:29 -
[1597] - Quote
This is SUPERB! I'm really impressed with this new system. I think the core principals and mechanics behind it are sound and will make for a more exciting and rewarding null sec. The minutia and peripherals of it will be refined and tweaked over time and with testing (and there's some real potential there for new, more dynamic and interesting gameplay/tactics/fails) but at the core of it, this new Null Sec/Sov system is SUPERB.
As a wormholer, I look forward to 3rd partying the **** out of nullsec engagements in Summer 2015 :)
http://i.imgur.com/8tmu8E2.jpg
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1739
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:31:01 -
[1598] - Quote
Also... Renter Empires
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
338
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:32:16 -
[1599] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Don't even know how SOV,iHUB and POS work. Good luck making ISK out of a system with no ihub and no sov lvl.
If you think this change is to attract people who want to min/max ISK to go claim a foothold in null, you are pretty much missing the entire point of who this is intended to appeal to.
This change is NOT so that everyone gets to have station eggs. It is NOT so that everyone gets to own R64 moons. It is NOT so that everyone can go AFK anom rat at 30m a tick.
This change is so that smaller groups with an identity and a desire to have fun can go easily/feasibly carve out a couple of systems in **** null that ALREADY nobody wants and nobody uses, without having to join a giant blue coaltion or pay rent to anyone. And then stick their name on the map. And then have very little incentive or ability for someone else to come screw with that in any meaningful way unless those interlocutors actually intend to move into that system and evict the residents. In short, WH mentality but for null.
It's telling when roaming WH fights are far more prevalent than roaming null fights. WH evictions are very different and considerably more rare than the usual WH "gudfite". Groups choose to live in C2 and C3 WH's all the time, despite the fact that the ISK efficiency, especially as compared to risk, is pretty "meh". |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10047
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:32:27 -
[1600] - Quote
Sentinel Eeex wrote:Ok, the great plan is to turn "EVE Online" into "Roaming Gangs Online" "Even Bluer Donuts Online".
Got it.
Fixed. Will be funny to watch the post June disappointment set in with the unrealistically optimistic crowd.
|
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
402
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:33:37 -
[1601] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
what makes you think i won't squash you for funsies we spent three months squashing anyone who dared mine gallente ice in highsec, what makes you think that every shitlord who raises a flag isn't going to look like a nail to swing my massive hammer at
More fun for you then, so what exactly are you crying about?
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
116
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:35:00 -
[1602] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Small gang will go around flagging up every structure an alliance owns to make them chase their own tails.
PIZZA is gonna be busy |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10047
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:35:14 -
[1603] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
what makes you think i won't squash you for funsies we spent three months squashing anyone who dared mine gallente ice in highsec, what makes you think that every shitlord who raises a flag isn't going to look like a nail to swing my massive hammer at More fun for you then, so what exactly are you crying about?
The fact that the idea is dumb and will be a waste of time? Just because someone benefits from a situation doesn't mean that can't see what's wrong with it. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
75
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:35:45 -
[1604] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote: could you call yourselves "the honey badger coalition" when you all move into null so we can repeat the last time we squashed a bunch of incompetents like a bug who thought that quantity was quality
Oh I dunno that I've ever run into your corp before, but i'll make a note so when we roll into you and watch you dock up cause you don't want your **** pushed in I can remind you of that big hammer you own. ok, good luck with that, see you soon
LMAO so i looked you up. Your corp has 16 members. Hope... PRAY... we don't f'king run into you cause i'll SRP our entire fleet out of my own pocket if necessary to make you cry like the little renter ***** you are.
I just want to point out some basic killboard stats:
Buttecorp INC: Destroyed 2.19b Lost: 3.26b
Blue-Fire: Destroyed 2.05t Lost 690b
By the looks of it if we brought the fight you would get your s_hit pushed in as i would expect of any typical nullbear corp hiding behind a big alliance ticker.
https://zkillboard.com/corporation/911536135/ https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98122843/ |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30755
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:35:59 -
[1605] - Quote
I'm not sure lengthy explanations in this thread are likely, when it would be better to use them as material for FF.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6339
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:36:09 -
[1606] - Quote
Well...
Having trespassed all over nullsec and made observations of the status quo now, and having done it since before Dominion knew the status quo then, I can say that given the butthurt level that has progressed to the point of complete butthole separation (and said buttholes apparently a budding off process of "the usual crowd" and now more have appeared) , these changes will be a good thing.
Directed complaints from a large alliance *coughgoons* should not change this vector considering they are one of the Uncle Bobs.
Anyway, I'm glad to see the comment "weaponized boredom" appear in the dev blog. The Great Malais of 2014 was for the most part a final result of Eve game mechanics centered on being by and for the game style of preventing the game from being played.
The dev blog is like the rainbow after the great biblical flood.
Nullsec needs to be shaken up. I see "they usual crowd" complaining loudly though, and makes me wonder why since they always write about highsec.
As for Trollceptors, so what. I have a lossmail of a ceptor getting insta'ed before the dictor could get a scram on it. It CAN be done I saw it myself.
Oh, you don't want to have to camp your own gates now? CCP is obviously not going to get rid of gates (even though I insist that if all ships could warp on their own it would be an epic breakout of the Malais) and people just gotta death camp them so here you go, it's what you want: you now have a REAL reason to camp them and kill everything that is not blue.
(But you never know if they stage in your system and then strike!! Bwa ha ha ha ha Shoot all teh things)
But you know, I think that these SOV changes will be the greatest buff to highsec to ever occur in the history of the game. Why? Well, it's going to be hard defending your SOV while running that highsec incursion alt. It's going to be hard having to camp that gate for trollceptors instead of ganking freighters in the highsec pipelines. And even harder having to camp that gate andrat to get sec status back up.
Do iHubs store loot? I don't know you see I have only flown past them because I have not bent the knee to nullsec alliances. But I will look forward to the "just came back to Eve and my stuff is gone" threads. Which are not that different from the "Just came back to Eve and I can't get my stuff because they camped me into the station" threads. You know - gotta get those killz! Hey everybody! Live meat! Zombie swarm!
And here I was expecting something like "if you enter a system while not in the SOV holding alliance you instantly explode and your corpse is used to power the moon goo pumps". But it would appear that CCP has finally noticed that more people "have tried Eve" than actually played it.
Obligatory: My god, it's full of tears...
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:37:01 -
[1607] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Don't even know how SOV,iHUB and POS work. Good luck making ISK out of a system with no ihub and no sov lvl. If you think this change is to attract people who want to min/max ISK to go claim a foothold in null, you are pretty much missing the entire point of who this is intended to appeal to. This change is NOT so that everyone gets to have station eggs. It is NOT so that everyone gets to own R64 moons. It is NOT so that everyone can go AFK anom rat at 30m a tick. This change is so that smaller groups with an identity and a desire to have fun can go easily/feasibly carve out a couple of systems in **** null that ALREADY nobody wants and nobody uses, without having to join a giant blue coaltion or pay rent to anyone. And then stick their name on the map. And then have very little incentive or ability for someone else to come screw with that in any meaningful way unless those interlocutors actually intend to move into that system and evict the residents. In short, WH mentality but for null. It's telling when roaming WH fights are far more prevalent than roaming null fights. WH evictions are very different and considerably more rare than the usual WH "gudfite". Groups choose to live in C2 and C3 WH's all the time, despite the fact that the ISK efficiency, especially as compared to risk, is pretty "meh".
And if you want to do this it's nothing stoping you already you can set up POS in any system you want don't need SOV and I know small gangs that shut down systems like this already, The fact that you already not doing it show how much you are comidet to this idea already. It's just a fantasie, if this was your goal you would have already done it.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
174
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:37:43 -
[1608] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:The fact that the idea is dumb and will be a waste of time? Just because someone benefits from a situation doesn't mean that can't see what's wrong with it. So small gangs are gonna be having fun, big alliances are gonna be having fun waving around their giant 'hammers' and yet this is a dumb waste of time?
I want them to take away our fun and make us sit in stations ship spinning everyday instead of adding content :( |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:38:06 -
[1609] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:So, I have another idea.
You know how CBCs and Command Ships can fit links but never do? Perhaps only CBCs should be able to fit an Entosis Link. Would give them a purpose in life since they have had no purpose since 2013. They can also fit MMJDs. So bombers? What bombers? I just jumped away. Jumping does not break locks unless you jump out of locking range. vOv
edit: added CS
Given the spool-up time on an MMJD, jumping away from bombers won't be as easy as you make it out to be - especially not since any decent bomber FC will just have a second squad ready 100km ahead of you. |
Gericht
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:39:47 -
[1610] - Quote
My two cents on this. I'd make the entosis link incompatible with afterburners, mjd's and mwd's which would prevent the concept of the trollceptor. And in the event of a tie on the combat for a station or ihub I would automatically make the defenders win to allow a bit of home field advantage. |
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno.
4302
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:40:45 -
[1611] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote: could you call yourselves "the honey badger coalition" when you all move into null so we can repeat the last time we squashed a bunch of incompetents like a bug who thought that quantity was quality
Oh I dunno that I've ever run into your corp before, but i'll make a note so when we roll into you and watch you dock up cause you don't want your **** pushed in I can remind you of that big hammer you own. ok, good luck with that, see you soon LMAO so i looked you up. Your corp has 16 members. Hope... PRAY... we don't f'king run into you cause i'll SRP our entire fleet out of my own pocket if necessary to make you cry like the little renter ***** you are. I just want to point out some basic killboard stats: Buttecorp INC: Destroyed 2.19b Lost: 3.26b Blue-Fire: Destroyed 2.05t Lost 690b By the looks of it if we brought the fight you would get your s_hit pushed in as i would expect of any typical nullbear corp hiding behind a big alliance ticker. https://zkillboard.com/corporation/911536135/ https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98122843/ Your are a small fish in a big pond with ***** envy. oh dear!
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:40:58 -
[1612] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
Meh. Large scale stability and stable logistic chains, along with the ability to swamp small enemies with the people they don't need for immediate self defense means that big coalitions are going to come out of this even better than the little guys. When the bar is lowered to near 0 for taking system, the more force you can apply, the more space you can steamroll in a smaller amount of time.
And the higher the bar is raised, the more likely only the big blocs are going to have the ability to overcome it.
Really, there's a reason this kind of equilibrium state has been a recurring theme in history. No problem has ever existed where being able to devote more brainpower to finding a solution, and more manpower to executing that solution, hasn't produced a more effective solution. Doesn't happen. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:43:15 -
[1613] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:LMAO so i looked you up. Your corp has 16 members. Hope... PRAY... we don't f'king run into you cause i'll SRP our entire fleet out of my own pocket if necessary to make you cry like the little renter ***** you are. I just want to point out some basic killboard stats: Buttecorp INC: Destroyed 2.19b Lost: 3.26b Blue-Fire: Destroyed 2.05t Lost 690b By the looks of it if we brought the fight you would get your s_hit pushed in as i would expect of any typical nullbear corp hiding behind a big alliance ticker. https://zkillboard.com/corporation/911536135/ https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98122843/ Your are a small fish in a big pond with ***** envy.
Now look up 'Goonswarm Federation', and while you're at it, 'The Clusterfuck Coalition'. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
803
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:43:19 -
[1614] - Quote
Gericht wrote:My two cents on this. I'd make the entosis link incompatible with afterburners, mjd's and mwd's which would prevent the concept of the trollceptor. And in the event of a tie on the combat for a station or ihub I would automatically make the defenders win to allow a bit of home field advantage.
Why? 100m loot pinyatas are delicious.
These things will die in fires.
No-one in their right mind will do this if people show up to defend. If they don't...then they've no right to have it in the first instance. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10049
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:44:22 -
[1615] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:The fact that the idea is dumb and will be a waste of time? Just because someone benefits from a situation doesn't mean that can't see what's wrong with it. So small gangs are gonna be having fun, big alliances are gonna be having fun waving around their giant 'hammers' and yet this is a dumb waste of time? I want them to take away our fun and make us sit in stations ship spinning everyday instead of adding content :(
This is what I mean by "unrealistically optimistic". I've learned that nothing you say dissuades people like that, because they are used to believing what they want. Not even evidence works.
I had this same conversation 2 dozen times before Dominion and I ain't doing it again lol. |
Starrakatt
Hunter Killers. Forsaken Asylum
227
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:44:45 -
[1616] - Quote
Princess Cherista wrote:Summer 2015: our inties and nullified no-commit fits will blot out the sun And thus it begins.
As a (Hisec) merc, most, if not all, Nulsec entities always shrugged and sported dismissive comments on how mercs were not affecting them, only killing the Hisec bads/random nul ratters, depending where the mercs were operating from.
With the Entosis Ceptor, being cheap ships and with minimal risks, even scrub Hisec mercs can go down in nul and 'affect', read **** them off no end (the dream of any merc's client), said entities by trolling their Sov timers, yes.
While they can do squat to us, in our Hisec safety.
Thank you CCP, THANK YOU.
Forsaken Asylum's ways
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
404
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:45:22 -
[1617] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
what makes you think i won't squash you for funsies we spent three months squashing anyone who dared mine gallente ice in highsec, what makes you think that every shitlord who raises a flag isn't going to look like a nail to swing my massive hammer at More fun for you then, so what exactly are you crying about? The fact that the idea is dumb and will be a waste of time? Just because someone benefits from a situation doesn't mean that can't see what's wrong with it.
He doesn't benefit from the situation. For all his pathetic "tough guy" act. He's bricking it because his alliance didn't get exactly what they wanted from this sov revamp.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
340
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:46:35 -
[1618] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:And if you want to do this it's nothing stoping you already you can set up POS in any system you want don't need SOV and I know small gangs that shut down systems like this already, The fact that you already not doing it show how much you are comidet to this idea already. It's just a fantasie, if this was your goal you would have already done it.
There is an overwhelming perception that it can't be done for newer players because the space LOOKS like it is owned by someone else. Also, you seriously underestimate the importance of having your own name on the map. You CAN live incognito in someone else's **** null, but you don't get to put your name on the map, so why not just go live in a WH instead?
I pretty much DO do this, only we do it in a WH. And once the change goes live, we might move to a corner of null instead, who knows? We don't do it now because it doesn't feel like "home" when someone else's name is on the map, but having the convenience of perfect local intel is sure appealing. We already make crap ISK compared to what high sec incursions bring, and that's with the need to fund T3 fleets. Crap null might be even less ISK efficient, but with perfect intel and these sov changes, we would only need to fund intys/AF's and HAC's on that lower income anyway in order to still have fun with anyone passing through. And it doesn't preclude the ability to scan down holes still.
Sure, the POS's will be more vulnerable since they can be hotdropped by caps, but the risk of that has become considerably lower with all the other changes. It's not like a POS in a WH is 100% safe either; if someone wants to evict you, they will. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
551
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:46:37 -
[1619] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:LMAO so i looked you up. Your corp has 16 members. Hope... PRAY... we don't f'king run into you cause i'll SRP our entire fleet out of my own pocket if necessary to make you cry like the little renter ***** you are. I just want to point out some basic killboard stats: Buttecorp INC: Destroyed 2.19b Lost: 3.26b Blue-Fire: Destroyed 2.05t Lost 690b By the looks of it if we brought the fight you would get your s_hit pushed in as i would expect of any typical nullbear corp hiding behind a big alliance ticker. https://zkillboard.com/corporation/911536135/ https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98122843/ Your are a small fish in a big pond with ***** envy.
you do realize what an alt corp is, right
frankly i'm surprised we've destroyed 2.19b as i don't know that this altcorp has anyone who can fire a gun right now, though zkillboard seems to be shitting itself so i can't see
but go ahead and bark, my capital pilot in goonwaffe has destroyed close to a quarter of what your entire corporation has~~~
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6340
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:46:48 -
[1620] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
what makes you think i won't squash you for funsies we spent three months squashing anyone who dared mine gallente ice in highsec, what makes you think that every shitlord who raises a flag isn't going to look like a nail to swing my massive hammer at Well that was hardly difficult was it, all the mining ships of that period had the tank of a wet paper bag, I would like to see you try it now on Skiffs and Procurer fleets, I doubt you will have the same level of success because it is no longer like taking candy from babies... Yes of course you are going to wield that hammer, but the fun part is that smaller entities will go light, TCU next to a deathstar and some even working together to deal with your hammer, it will be fun won't it?
They don't want fun. They want ISK.
I do agree though that nullsec should have income buffs, but not in the form of more moon goo.
It would be epic from a lore point of view if during the Freeport time span lots of different pirate factions start showing up with heavy hitting ships. Not to interfere with the "tug of war", just a raised pirate presence so that the system may even attract freebooters looking for chances at fat loot. This would add an additional entity to these SOV struggles: defenders, invaders, and now all of a sudden all these random neutrals.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
676
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:47:04 -
[1621] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:LMAO so i looked you up. Your corp has 16 members. Hope... PRAY... we don't f'king run into you cause i'll SRP our entire fleet out of my own pocket if necessary to make you cry like the little renter ***** you are. I just want to point out some basic killboard stats: Buttecorp INC: Destroyed 2.19b Lost: 3.26b Blue-Fire: Destroyed 2.05t Lost 690b By the looks of it if we brought the fight you would get your s_hit pushed in as i would expect of any typical nullbear corp hiding behind a big alliance ticker. https://zkillboard.com/corporation/911536135/ https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98122843/ Your are a small fish in a big pond with ***** envy. Now look up 'Goonswarm Federation', and while you're at it, 'The Clusterfuck Coalition'.
Are you going to move the entire CFC fleet to defend him?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10052
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:47:24 -
[1622] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
He doesn't benefit from the situation. For all his pathetic "tough guy" act. He's bricking it because his alliance didn't get exactly what they wanted from this sov revamp.
That's just useless guilt by association. I feel the same way he does and I'm not a Goon. You're letting your goon prejudice blind you. I've been shooting at goons for 7 years and i don't even feel that way about them. |
Gorgof Intake
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:47:53 -
[1623] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:LMAO so i looked you up. Your corp has 16 members. Hope... PRAY... we don't f'king run into you cause i'll SRP our entire fleet out of my own pocket if necessary to make you cry like the little renter ***** you are. I just want to point out some basic killboard stats: Buttecorp INC: Destroyed 2.19b Lost: 3.26b Blue-Fire: Destroyed 2.05t Lost 690b By the looks of it if we brought the fight you would get your s_hit pushed in as i would expect of any typical nullbear corp hiding behind a big alliance ticker. https://zkillboard.com/corporation/911536135/ https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98122843/ Your are a small fish in a big pond with ***** envy. Now look up 'Goonswarm Federation', and while you're at it, 'The Clusterfuck Coalition'.
None of which matters when your roster of capable FCs amounts to around half a dozen dudes- maybe a dozen if you stretch it out to incorporate pubbie shitlords.
Can we all stop the phallic measurements and address the actual issues at hand?
Some Thoughts on Sov Mechanics
DEADPACKS: Alternative Sov Mechanic
|
Urandas
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:47:57 -
[1624] - Quote
In general I like the feeling of being forced to hold a grid while you capture an objective. But unfortunately the 'prime time' just seems to lucrative and would discourage people of other TZ's. As regards to the troll ceptor It would be an issue because sov holders like to respond to timers because a fast form up to deal with someone reinforcing a tower is too difficult and generally the aggressors already have the number advantage. Supers and dreads have vertually no use in this system but triage carriers would be great for helping the holding grid. Battleships need more love (they do, screw your statistics, I want to fly a baltec again!) (or nerf bombs :) ). So I would give the link thingy heavier fitting requirements or force it to be used on cruiser and larger ships so they could be catched unlike the trollceptor. I think you could catch an nully/cloaky/loki with a ceptor if it started a cycle. but ceptors them selves are too annoying to catch. Also I think the spread out of targets between a constellation needs some fine tuning personally. But again this is all subject to change. :) |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:48:06 -
[1625] - Quote
Starrakatt wrote:Princess Cherista wrote:Summer 2015: our inties and nullified no-commit fits will blot out the sun And thus it begins. As a (Hisec) merc, most, if not all, Nulsec entities always shrugged and sported dismissive comments on how mercs were not affecting them, only killing the Hisec bads/random nul ratters, depending where the mercs were operating from. With the Entosis Ceptor, being cheap ships and with minimal risks, even scrub Hisec mercs can go down in nul and 'affect', read **** them off no end (the dream of any merc's client), said entities by trolling their Sov timers, yes. While they can do squat to us, in our Hisec safety. Thank you CCP, THANK YOU.
Mercs still won't have much of an effect, really. It'll mostly be standing defense fleets, which already exist in many places, they just don't get a lot of press. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:48:42 -
[1626] - Quote
this thread seems to have lost trac, so let me help put it back on the rails...
THESE CHANGES ARE TERRIBLE. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
676
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:49:21 -
[1627] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:LMAO so i looked you up. Your corp has 16 members. Hope... PRAY... we don't f'king run into you cause i'll SRP our entire fleet out of my own pocket if necessary to make you cry like the little renter ***** you are. I just want to point out some basic killboard stats: Buttecorp INC: Destroyed 2.19b Lost: 3.26b Blue-Fire: Destroyed 2.05t Lost 690b By the looks of it if we brought the fight you would get your s_hit pushed in as i would expect of any typical nullbear corp hiding behind a big alliance ticker. https://zkillboard.com/corporation/911536135/ https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98122843/ Your are a small fish in a big pond with ***** envy. you do realize what an alt corp is, right frankly i'm surprised we've destroyed 2.19b as i don't know that this altcorp has anyone who can fire a gun right now, though zkillboard seems to be shitting itself so i can't see but go ahead and bark, my capital pilot in goonwaffe has destroyed close to a quarter of what your entire corporation has~~~
Big deal, you are still posting with an industrial alt which does kinda lesson the impact of your hammer statement a far bit, actually a lot to be honest.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
175
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:49:30 -
[1628] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Starrakatt wrote:Princess Cherista wrote:Summer 2015: our inties and nullified no-commit fits will blot out the sun And thus it begins. As a (Hisec) merc, most, if not all, Nulsec entities always shrugged and sported dismissive comments on how mercs were not affecting them, only killing the Hisec bads/random nul ratters, depending where the mercs were operating from. With the Entosis Ceptor, being cheap ships and with minimal risks, even scrub Hisec mercs can go down in nul and 'affect', read **** them off no end (the dream of any merc's client), said entities by trolling their Sov timers, yes. While they can do squat to us, in our Hisec safety. Thank you CCP, THANK YOU. Mercs still won't have much of an effect, really. It'll mostly be standing defense fleets, which already exist in many places, they just don't get a lot of press. And you now needs a lot more of those standing defence fleets spread out to cover your whole space meaning they'll individually be weaker...so does that roaming solo inty have a cyno and are there ships waiting to jump?
You feel lucky punk? Well do you? |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:50:24 -
[1629] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:None of which matters when your roster of capable FCs amounts to around half a dozen dudes- maybe a dozen if you stretch it out to incorporate pubbie shitlords.
Can we all stop the phallic measurements and address the actual issues at hand?
Hey, man, my grossly hyperinflated phallic measurements are the issues in my hands! Err... I mean...
Yeah, basically, this all going to get silly, huh?
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
676
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:50:43 -
[1630] - Quote
Starrakatt wrote:Princess Cherista wrote:Summer 2015: our inties and nullified no-commit fits will blot out the sun And thus it begins. As a (Hisec) merc, most, if not all, Nulsec entities always shrugged and sported dismissive comments on how mercs were not affecting them, only killing the Hisec bads/random nul ratters, depending where the mercs were operating from. With the Entosis Ceptor, being cheap ships and with minimal risks, even scrub Hisec mercs can go down in nul and 'affect', read **** them off no end (the dream of any merc's client), said entities by trolling their Sov timers, yes. While they can do squat to us, in our Hisec safety. Thank you CCP, THANK YOU.Edit: Now Gevlon Goblin can spend ISK on something useful to destroy Goonswarm.
And you guys are on my list of mercs to use.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:51:13 -
[1631] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:You feel lucky punk? Well do you?
Yup! I do! |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
551
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:51:26 -
[1632] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: Big deal, you are still posting with an industrial alt which does kinda lesson the impact of your hammer statement a far bit, actually a lot to be honest.
oh no, the pubbies begging ccp to help them are not sufficiently wowed by the last character i happened to log in on from this computer
the shame, the everlasting shame |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30755
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:51:47 -
[1633] - Quote
re-+crim-+i-+na-+tion r+Ö-îkrim+Ö-ên-üSH(+Ö)n/
noun
an accusation in response to one from someone else. "there are no tears, no recriminations" synonyms: accusation(s), counteraccusation(s), countercharge(s), counterattack(s), retaliation(s) "this is not a time for recrimination, but a time to come together in solidarity"
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno.
4302
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:52:04 -
[1634] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:
He doesn't benefit from the situation. For all his pathetic "tough guy" act. He's bricking it because his alliance didn't get exactly what they wanted from this sov revamp.
That's just useless guilt by association. I feel the same way he does and I'm not a Goon. You're letting your goon prejudice blind you. I've been shooting at goons for 7 years and i don't even feel that way about them. we call it ad hominem if we like silly words and want to feel really fancy |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:52:45 -
[1635] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Kah'Les wrote:And if you want to do this it's nothing stoping you already you can set up POS in any system you want don't need SOV and I know small gangs that shut down systems like this already, The fact that you already not doing it show how much you are comidet to this idea already. It's just a fantasie, if this was your goal you would have already done it.
There is an overwhelming perception that it can't be done for newer players because the space LOOKS like it is owned by someone else. Also, you seriously underestimate the importance of having your own name on the map. You CAN live incognito in someone else's **** null, but you don't get to put your name on the map, so why not just go live in a WH instead? I pretty much DO do this, only we do it in a WH. And once the change goes live, we might move to a corner of null instead, who knows? We don't do it now because it doesn't feel like "home" when someone else's name is on the map, but having the convenience of perfect local intel is sure appealing. We already make crap ISK compared to what high sec incursions bring, and that's with the need to fund T3 fleets. Crap null might be even less ISK efficient, but with perfect intel and these sov changes, we would only need to fund intys/AF's and HAC's on that lower income anyway in order to still have fun with anyone passing through. And it doesn't preclude the ability to scan down holes still. Sure, the POS's will be more vulnerable since they can be hotdropped by caps, but the risk of that has become considerably lower with all the other changes. It's not like a POS in a WH is 100% safe either; if someone wants to evict you, they will.
So it's not even the idea of having SOV that is tempting it's just to have you name on some page. CCP realy pulling people to large scall warfare for the right reasones.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30755
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:53:36 -
[1636] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:None of which matters when your roster of capable FCs amounts to around half a dozen dudes- maybe a dozen if you stretch it out to incorporate pubbie shitlords.
Can we all stop the phallic measurements and address the actual issues at hand?
I'll have you know our list of incapable FCs is much, much longer!
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
175
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:54:55 -
[1637] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:You feel lucky punk? Well do you? Yup! I do! That's the spirit!
I don't care either way though - my point was that being forced to actually move out of a station and defend your structures in what might initially be a small scale fight - could well escalate and be fun for all ships and all sizes by the end :) |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:55:30 -
[1638] - Quote
THESE CHANGES ARE FANTASTIC |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno.
4302
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:55:51 -
[1639] - Quote
I didn't get an answer before, so I'll ask again: Do we actually know the fitting requirements of the funky capture mod or is the interceptor talk based on the assumption the mod'll be fittable to frigates?
I don't want to actually argue about it, I just want to know if there's something I'm missing. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
679
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:56:09 -
[1640] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Dracvlad wrote: Big deal, you are still posting with an industrial alt which does kinda lesson the impact of your hammer statement a far bit, actually a lot to be honest.
oh no, the pubbies begging ccp to help them are not sufficiently wowed by the last character i happened to log in on from this computer the shame, the everlasting shame
You should be embarrassed, not that I care that much, but it does show just how fazed you are by making posts like this, it shows you are not happy with this. I expect that the leadership of the Goons will be able to deal with these changes very easily, especially in fortress Deklin, you should have faith in them.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
552
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:56:43 -
[1641] - Quote
oh my mistake, now that zkillboard is up i see my cap pilot has 790b in kills not 450b
so whatever that scrubtier corporation that has 2t split between like 100 guys, lawl |
Terraniel Aurelius
High Flyers The Kadeshi
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:57:34 -
[1642] - Quote
I think it would make sense that these entosis links need to be fit to something that is cruiser sized or larger. That should counter the griefing tactics that have already been devised by most major alliances.
Also, what is the point of having the command nodes show up anywhere within the constellation? Shouldn't they be limited to the sov that is being attacked? I mean, it makes sense if a single entity holds the constellation, but if it's just a single system held by an alliance/corp, then it seems arbitrarily tedious to have to run around all over the place to defend your sov. Sort of like fighting a war in a different country to defend your borders.
This doesn't really do anything to make null any more viable to live in. What about industry changes? Alliances are still forced to import massive amounts of minerals to build ships. How is that going to work for small groups trying to hold a little chunk of space? That seems like it would just keep the current renter-systems status quo. Big alliances can't move into smaller space because the anomalies and belts don't regenerate fast enough with the current indexes. Maybe you should look at that. Seems like it was designed back when you thought there would only be 40 people living in a single system at a time. |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
262
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:01:31 -
[1643] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote: could you call yourselves "the honey badger coalition" when you all move into null so we can repeat the last time we squashed a bunch of incompetents like a bug who thought that quantity was quality
Oh I dunno that I've ever run into your corp before, but i'll make a note so when we roll into you and watch you dock up cause you don't want your **** pushed in I can remind you of that big hammer you own.
Dude, he is Goonswarm. If you haven't run into a Goon yet, you aren't doing anything in this game. And yeah, feel free to visit Deklein and maybe we'll let you watch us dock up or something. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6340
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:04:26 -
[1644] - Quote
We are going to need a fundraiser to buy the ISDs lots of aspirin.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
177
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:17:00 -
[1645] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:And if people need to use 28 hours a week to stop scrubs from taking systems, it sounds balanced how? The sov system we have now even thou it's grindy at least you only needed to spend 1 hour to stop someone from taking one system compared to making eve a second job with the new system.
Kah'Les wrote:It's a place of comidment and time
Make your mind up son. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1991
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:17:19 -
[1646] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Kah'Les wrote:I will repeat this as often as possible, null was not made for everyon. It was not made for the fresh out of rookie school noob. It's a place of comidment and time, where the ones that should be able to mainly hold sov do have a plan and man power to carryu out larger operations than those in low sec. So don't revert us to FW 2.0. And yet you can't commit to defending your space for 4 hrs a day against people fresh out of rookie school? And if people need to use 28 hours a week to stop scrubs from taking systems, it sounds balanced how? The sov system we have now even thou it's grindy at least you only needed to spend 1 hour to stop someone from taking one system compared to making eve a second job with the new system.
aaaa pooor guy.. EVE will become too hardcore for you? how sad......
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:17:29 -
[1647] - Quote
prime time should be set and should not be able to be changed just like that With only 96 hours. should be a whole week at least personally a month |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1991
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:20:19 -
[1648] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Just gone make sure to get it out there until I know CCP notice; I'm 100% against entosis links. SOV magic beam is the most lazy, easiest solution and 0% comidment.
Says the guy playing submarines in space... where things collide at relativistic speeds and just bounce like rubber. Where people can stick books into their heads.... where you can track things better far away than close by. Where.. well youg et the idea.. this is a fantasy game
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
343
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:21:05 -
[1649] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:OK CCP Fozzie. There is a big elephant in the room for me. What are you going to do about large alliances like NC. and N3 just using their might to effectively own loads and load of regions ( it's getting out of hand) and do as they are now renting every system for billions and do absolutely nothing but use their capital might to stop anyone doing anything.
You can't own large regions on the basis of capital might anymore. Even if we reverted the travel changes, the existing capital/supercap dominance doesn't work when you have to capture 10 or 20 nodes across a constellation. For each group of systems you want to control, everywhere, all at roughly the same time. Every day, because anyone can flip them on a moment's notice if you weren't actually there to defensive E-link to prevent the timer.
What, exactly, are you going to hot drop your caps on? What is the deterrent your supercap fleet provides when the nullfiied cloaky T3 fleet can just go around you and capture sov control nodes in every other system around your big giant fleet?
This isn't to say that strategically critical systems won't still escalate into giant cap battles. But large alliances simply won't be able to lock down "loads of regions" for any length of time without committing significant fleet ops to defend every timer in every single one. And there will be timers, because anyone in an inty can start the timer and anyone with a few T3 cruisers can then cap 10 or 20 control nodes on a whim. And the large groups cannot stop any of this unless they commit an actual fleet to stopping them or out-capping them. In every. single. constellation that they want to control.
In short, if you don't have live, active pilots in that area on a regular, daily basis, you will be at a fatal disadvantage to almost any reasonably sized/funded group that IS willing to live there on a regular, daily basis.
Any system that large groups are willing to live in and "staff" with reasonably sized defense/E-link/counter-control-node fleets, those large groups can own. The entire point is that we're all pretty sure the number of systems that will be is going to be considerably less than the number they own right now. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:22:00 -
[1650] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kah'Les wrote:And if people need to use 28 hours a week to stop scrubs from taking systems, it sounds balanced how? The sov system we have now even thou it's grindy at least you only needed to spend 1 hour to stop someone from taking one system compared to making eve a second job with the new system. Kah'Les wrote:It's a place of comidment and time Make your mind up son.
You honestly don't know how much time in null sec goes down to fueling POS, JB and supplying yourself with weekly PvP ships. If your prime time is used hunting people all the time you get less time to logistics and CTAs to fight the bigger fights, personal roams or ISK making. Instead you sit all day in your own system activating Entosis Link all day. There are other things than fighting that takes time in this game. |
|
Max Therion
Jita Ikami Bank
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:22:38 -
[1651] - Quote
Make the Entosis module unable to be fit to all frigates and unable to be remote boosted. Otherwise, also make moar null space on the map so that if this becomes an experiment in the absurd it will be even a bigger mistake. Change for improvement is welcome; change for changes sake is not, it is a slippery slope. |
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:22:47 -
[1652] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:lilol' me wrote:OK CCP Fozzie. There is a big elephant in the room for me. What are you going to do about large alliances like NC. and N3 just using their might to effectively own loads and load of regions ( it's getting out of hand) and do as they are now renting every system for billions and do absolutely nothing but use their capital might to stop anyone doing anything. You can't own large regions on the basis of capital might anymore. Even if we reverted the travel changes, the existing capital/supercap dominance doesn't work when you have to capture 10 or 20 nodes across a constellation. For each group of systems you want to control, everywhere, all at roughly the same time. Every day, because anyone can flip them on a moment's notice if you weren't actually there to defensive E-link to prevent the timer. What, exactly, are you going to hot drop your caps on? What is the deterrent your supercap fleet provides when the nullfiied cloaky T3 fleet can just go around you and capture sov control nodes in every other system around your big giant fleet? This isn't to say that strategically critical systems won't still escalate into giant cap battles. But large alliances simply won't be able to lock down "loads of regions" for any length of time without committing significant fleet ops to defend every timer in every single one. And there will be timers, because anyone in an inty can start the timer and anyone with a few T3 cruisers can then cap 10 or 20 control nodes on a whim. And the large groups cannot stop any of this unless they commit an actual fleet to stopping them or out-capping them. In every. single. constellation that they want to control. In short, if you don't have live, active pilots in that area on a regular, daily basis, you will be at a fatal disadvantage to almost any reasonably sized/funded group that IS willing to live there on a regular, daily basis. Any system that large groups are willing to live in and "staff" with reasonably sized defense/E-link/counter-control-node fleets, those large groups can own. The entire point is that we're all pretty sure the number of systems that will be is going to be considerably less than the number they own right now. er mm have you checked the sov map lately? like northern associates? |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:23:41 -
[1653] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:You feel lucky punk? Well do you? Yup! I do! That's the spirit! I don't care either way though - my point was that being forced to actually move out of a station and defend your structures in what might initially be a small scale fight - could well escalate and be fun for all ships and all sizes by the end :)
Seriously, if it works that way, I'll be thrilled. I enjoy all sorts of fights, small to massive tidi-fests. I also fly a lot of logi, so I always have stuff to do. But really, let's look at another model that was supposed to do exactly that: generate small-scale fights over localized points of control - one that some of the same people who are saying 'this will lead to trollceptors and not actual fighting' were saying would lead to interceptor antics and no real fighting:
How are those ESSs working out for inciting small-scale PVP while improving the value of null-space? I mean, they were supposed to get added for w-space and empire, right? Did they ever? Why would such a successful system not get the interative expansion that was planned?
Maybe... cuz it didn't work?
Similar mechanic is involved here: you can't warp away for X time.
Similar results will occur. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
223
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:24:15 -
[1654] - Quote
Hmm, not sure (still reading) - still seems a little too 'artificial' and a bit lacking in immersion, with the funky 'capture module'. I was really hoping to see you guys go more radical in terms of a 'free form' Sov model;
you know, leave the map drawing to the players, maybe after a year of actual occupancy (pilots in space/activity), Concord gives you a nod as to a 'flag' on the map...
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
679
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:24:50 -
[1655] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:i don't think we have to go all the way to NC. "being in sov should be the sole province of people with a titan" spartan 300 playacting online because they do not make xxxl size hoplite uniforms for you to playact irl to suggest that maybe if you want to challenge sov you should have to at least take on some tiny amount of risk
That's a better reply even with the play on the 300, I always found that rather cool that people called the defenders Spartans and then the number of people on that special SBU killmail was exactly 300, fate and all that.
Like many people I have no problem taking risk, and will at times expect to lose big time, the previous system was just no chance, of course I am realistic about you guys coming in with a big hammer, that's what big entities with lots of resources do, but when you have a chance you do, if you have 0 chance you don't...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:27:05 -
[1656] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:How are those ESSs working out for inciting small-scale PVP while improving the value of null-space?
Most people i know tried to use and like ESS but it was just too annoying to deal with so they quit using it and accepted being taxed 5% by CCP for living in the most dangerous space |
P'tank
Antwerpse Kerels RAZOR Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:28:51 -
[1657] - Quote
Since every single ship will be able to attack hostile Sov, every roam will be duncked as soon as it enters intel covered space. Sov holders won't tolerate any non-blue to fly around their space.
To be honest, I think this will kill casual (and most fun) pvp. There needs to be a way to identify a fleet as a sov tread or just a roam. Maybe introduce a specialised ship?
Recon ships might do (those which don't have a sov bonus), or HIC's ...
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:31:28 -
[1658] - Quote
P'tank wrote:Since every single ship will be able to attack hostile Sov, every roam will be duncked as soon as it enters intel covered space. Sov holders won't tolerate any non-blue to fly around their space.
To be honest, I think this will kill casual (and most fun) pvp. There needs to be a way to identify a fleet as a sov tread or just a roam. Maybe introduce a specialised ship?
Recon ships might do (those which don't have a sov bonus), or HIC's ...
That wouldn't work. Under the new mechanics when a fleet comes in and wants a fight and you don't give it to them they go after their station services and if you are in their primetime the station itself :) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1032
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:32:29 -
[1659] - Quote
ESS is an embarassment. is it seriously still possible to put it inside an anomaly? why wasn't that fixed on the day of release? |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:33:36 -
[1660] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:er mm have you checked the sov map lately? like northern associates?
Been down in NA. space a lot in the last few months. Querious, Immensea, Omist, etc...
So let's look at Querious.
Querious has 95 systems, with 30 stations. If you want to be able to defend all of Querious for 4 hours, you need to have at least 1 guy sitting on all of those structures w/a sov laser. You want to be pro-active here, because it only takes 2 minutes for a T2 module to cycle once, and then start rendering the structure vulnerable - if it's still vulnerable when Prime Time exits, it can still be attacked.
So that's 220 guys, right there.
What're they in? Carriers? Something big, so it can survive being attacked? Well, no remote assistance, so if it's going to work like that, you need to be able to defend yourself against what the other guy's going to bring to bare. So maybe something big.
And maybe your enemies use that knowledge to start killing your solo caps.
Ok, but obviously, your caps aren't required to remain solo - you can bring in 2 more carriers, and trade off on the defensive sov lasering. And now that you've jumped, the enemy flakes off into a different system.
How many capitals are you commiting to this? How many capital pilots are willing to just sit on their butts killing maybe a half-dozen cheap interceptors after 4 hours?
The capital blobs aren't going to be the hammer they've been.
|
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:35:22 -
[1661] - Quote
my body is ready for maledictions online |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3950
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:35:26 -
[1662] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
In other words, a little off topic ranting is perfectly fine in a thread like this, taking it to far however, is not.
The Rules: 3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counter productive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1445
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:35:46 -
[1663] - Quote
So many nullbear tears, not enough buckets.
The Tears Must Flow
|
Kael Attrell
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:38:10 -
[1664] - Quote
I generally agree with both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 sov changes, although I think it is unfortunate that they are delivered in the form of a stick without any corresponding carrot, or at least a discussion of it. Here are my thoughts, from the perspective of a small/medium corporation (~50 active members, 10-20 online at a time, though admittedly in a huge alliance), for what kinds of "carrot" (incentives) I'd like to see.
All I really want is a sov system where a corporation (or small alliance) can live in one system and do things together.
What I currently have:
- PvE - Sprawl. Currently, PvE is not worth doing together (wildly inefficient if active ratting, plus afk-ratting gives similar rewards) and PvE cannot support more than a handful of members per system. This gets further conflated by being in a large alliance, and we end up spread all over a region.
- Corp PvP - As a result of being so spread out, it is difficult to form for PvP fleets, either for home defense or roaming. In addition, because it isn't realistic to form up fleets to defend ourselves, attacking players can only realistically hunt for ganks, not fights.
- Alliance PvP - Join fleets, shoot things, no real complaints here except for the lack of reasons to shoot people and the relative scarcity of people to shoot. It's far more optimal to harrass sov holders than actually try to claim their space.
What I want:
- PvE - Increased player density within a system, either though increased anomaly count or some mission equivalent (see Endie's proposal) or through something like an incursion equivalent (group ratting for decent isk in actual pvp-capable ships).
- Corp PvP - Assuming greater player density, we can be in one place and thus form up to fight people who want to fight us.
- Alliance PvP - A strong enough incentive for small alliances to risk moving into nullsec, and still be able to get decent fights and make some profit even if they are quickly driven out.
Here are some things that I think would help:
1. Provide bonuses to system income based on sov level:
- Sov Level 0 - no change
- Sov Level 1 - X% bonus to bounties received / ore mined
- Sov Level 2 - 2X% bonus to bounties received / ore mined
- Sov Level 3 - 3X% bonus to bounties received / ore mined
- Sov Level 4 - 4X% bonus to bounties received / ore mined
- Sov Level 5 - 5X% bonus to bounties received / ore mined
Result: An incentive at the individual level to live in your sovereign space.
2. Provide group PvE content Sov Level 0 - no change Sov Level 1 - Scout incursion site on constant respawn Sov Level 2 - Additional anomalies (of the good ones, or rebalance so they're all "the good ones") Sov Level 3 - Vanguard incursion site on immediate respawn Sov Level 4 - Additional anomalies (of the good ones, or rebalance so they're all "the good ones") Sov Level 5 - Assault incursion site on immediate respawn Result: Increased player density and actual group PvE content.
3. Provide bonuses to alliance income based on sov level: Sov Level 0 - no change Sov Level 1 - X% of bounties / ore mined / industry fees / market taxes are placed in the IHUB and can be taken by anyone - basically an ESS-style system where friendly players can take for their corp or alliance and hostile players can steal. Sov Level 2 - 2X% as above Sov Level 3 - 3X% as above Sov Level 4 - 4X% as above Sov Level 5 - 5X% as above Result: Corp/Alliance-level incentives, based on player activity, to both hold and attack sov.
4. Incentivize smaller-scale conflict Sov Level 0 - no change Sov Level 1 - Command Nodes gated for Frigates and below Sov Level 2 - Command Nodes gated for Destroyers and below Sov Level 3 - Command Nodes gated for Cruisers and below Sov Level 4 - Command Nodes gated for Battleships and below Sov Level 5 - Command Nodes not gated Result: Larger alliances will always be able to push out smaller alliances; this way the smaller alliance can afford to fight back - if they keep their sov level low, so they can defend effectively with cheaper ships. Heck, they can probably spam the Sov Lasers at lower sov levels and just hold off an attacker indefinitely. Mess with how exactly a system like this works and you get all sorts of neat tactical/strategic outcomes (ex: different types of command nodes spawn, so instead of only having the ones listed above, you have every type spawn at every sov level, but mostly the ones listed above at each sov level).
I fully realize that I'm not a game designer, so take this more as "examples of mechanics that do things" than "things I expect to actually happen". I do, however, think it would be incredibly useful for CCP to start discussing the benefits of holding sov, and certainly to consider (and explain to us!) how those benefits can lead to increased conflict.
Edit: I don't talk about industry at all because I know nothing about it. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:41:11 -
[1665] - Quote
Princess Cherista wrote:Arrendis wrote:How are those ESSs working out for inciting small-scale PVP while improving the value of null-space? Most people i know tried to use and like ESS but it was just too annoying to deal with so they quit using it and accepted being taxed 5% by CCP for living in the most dangerous space
Exactly. Not exactly the conflict driver it was sold to be. |
Black Ambulance
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:42:06 -
[1666] - Quote
Here I am |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
197
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:42:59 -
[1667] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Lord TGR wrote: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. What "visceral brawls" have you ever had with or against Interceptors? Its tedious bug-hunting of cowards who do not want, and absolutely wont give you a fight. You form up, spend half an hour getting to them, and then they are gone in apuff of smoke. No fight, no kills, no point. It will be a miserable, soul-destroying existance. That lone interceptor won't be able to do much if even a single person from the defending alliance arrives and uses his own link thingy, at which point he's got to either scarper off or bring friends. Thus, the brawling starts, or they bugger off, leaving you with a defended home. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1695
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:43:15 -
[1668] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:ESS is an embarassment. is it seriously still possible to put it inside an anomaly? why wasn't that fixed on the day of release?
All of the new "fight generating" additions made by CCP ended up being anything but fight generators. Siphons/ESS being the prime examples. The issue is these are fundamentally asymmetric. The optimal gameplay is not to actually fight over them but to ninja them.
That is essentially what is wrong with this SOV proposal. There is no reason to actually fight head to head when you can ninja, if they show, repeat, over and over. They are turning what was an EHP grind into a timer response grind. Again, optimal gameplay will be to ninja. There are several ways to solve this issue.
I personally like the idea of the module not being on anything smaller than a BC but that might be too far. Having POS be anchorable at planets next to stations/ihubs etc might also be a nice mitigation strategy. You want to force defenders to defend and live there but not have swarms of griefers just burning down half the galaxy with minimal effort.
As far as supers, defenders can slap on on an Aeon and park it on a beacon too. Anyone that hotdrops gets counterdropped by the blob.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
177
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:43:19 -
[1669] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kyonko Nola wrote:I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time In which case you just plonk an atron at zero...sigh.
I prefer my smartbombing Rokh, but yes. Same point
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:46:02 -
[1670] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Good job CCP, keep making ships worth 20+ bil isk and years of training even more useless. I'm looking forward for the day when you say "no more structure grinding, now you can claim sov in a noobship!" Just quoting my prophesy to say - I didnt mean it, it was sarcasm!
When you removed the ability to teleport capitals across the galaxy, we said - fine, strategic assets should move strategically slow. But now you are making those strategic assets strategically worthless. Capitals should be the key in sov warfare, not the bloody interceptors. Of course, there should be support, and they should move slow, etc. But you cannot just erase them from the equation. You cannot promise us that you'll find them another role. You will not. This is their role.
When Fozzie and later Rise started their "tiercide" initiative - everyone were happy. You were bringing back a lot of ships back to life. Now you're about to destroy the most iconic class of ships. Dont do it. |
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:47:08 -
[1671] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Kyonko Nola wrote:I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time In which case you just plonk an atron at zero...sigh. I prefer my smartbombing Rokh, but yes. Same point Why dont you use those against ~reavers~ ? |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10053
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:47:42 -
[1672] - Quote
omg omg omg, I was reading a post about the ESS and I'm like "can we put this node thing in an anomaly, that would e hilarious".
Please do this CCP so in addition to being a non-consensual PVP game, EVE can haven't non-consensual PVE too!!! |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:51:19 -
[1673] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Lord TGR wrote: 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".
This prove my point. Fun "for you" maybe. But for tohers (like me), that set time is useful. Mainly because "honey, do you need me to do anything? I got a fleet in an hour" lol. fun for me is being able to play without a ticked of female clinging to my back like the Banshee. I never had that small gang, casual, quick fight mentality and never will. EVe already has multiple spaces for that (NPC null, low sec, wormhole space), trying to make null do that is a mistake. See, with the current system you know you'll be there for, say, 3 hours. With the new system you can ask the GF/wife/whatever if there's anything you need to do "because I was thinking of going on a fleet which'll take an hour or two". It's more flexible, so I don't see why that'd be called a bad thing.
Jenn aSide wrote:Quote: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. i heard that all thetime in 2009. People were so tired of pos grinding that Dominion sounded like a good deal. It's like Battlestar Galactica. "This has happened before, it will happen again" lol. And since then we've had a fucktonne of quality of life improvements to POS, a huge increase in things like dreads, carriers etc, and it's no longer a problem. It'd probably be a shittonne better to go back to the old POS system, because unlike the dominion sov system you didn't have a waterfall-style system where you spent a lot of energy to try to either attack or defend, and you either won or lost the system. And if that happens twice in a row, then you know the entire war's lost.
None of that in the old system, and none of that in the new system either that I can see offhand.
Quote: If you see a way in which it can, however, now'll be a good time to point out specifics.
That's just it, talking about specifics in a case where the entire idea (Sov) may be fundamentally flawed in the 1st place is futile. it's not the details, the the entire rationale behind the changes that need re-thinking. [/quote] I was actually thinking more generically than "this module must spend 3 minutes, not 2 minutes in the T2 variant". I don't care that much about minutiae until we've settled upon a general design, and if there's a general flaw then it behooves us to actually explore that, and only when we've settled on the general design should we drill deeper into the minutiae. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:56:32 -
[1674] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:You know NA. is just renters right?
Pretty much all of whom would have no reason to continue to be renters after this change. NC.'s supercaps will be no particular threat to them. Sure, you can make an example of some, drop a supercap fleet and flip sov back . And then when you leave they just flip it back with a cruiser fleet, because they don't NEED caps to grind the HP now, just their magic laser.
The number of renters able to field and willing to welp a 30-man cruiser fleet to reclaim sov after you leave is MUCH higher than the number of renters who can both field and afford to lose a structure grinding fleet. Are you going to go blap every single one? With what? With who? How long until your supercap alts get bored of jumping 30 gates in order to blow up a 30 cruiser renter fleet? Not once a day, but four or five times a day because every renter and their multibox accounts can assemble a cruiser fleet to revolt. So you stop doing it in supercaps, and fly T3's because OMG WARP IS SLOW... only a 500 man T3/ishtar fleet is not the same kind of hammer that a 500 man supercap fleet is, and it STILL can't be everywhere at once. Oh, and while you were doing that, Brave came and flipped half your home systems in their Eagle fleets because they can.
And if you DON'T get bored doing that, great. More explosions for everyone!
The existing deterrent to sov conflict is structure grind, not supercaps. Supercaps were a deterrent to STRUCTURE GRIND, not sov conflict. If you remove structure grind, supercaps are short-circuited and stop being a deterrent to sov conflict. They will still be very useful for winning large strategic battles, but they do nothing to stop people from pecking away at your sov. ONLY active, live pilots in space during your prime time window will stop people from pecking away at your sov. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
425
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:57:16 -
[1675] - Quote
When CCP suggests patches like this one and the Jump Fatigue/Jump Range nerfs, it is clear that they do not actually play the game in nullsec. They're using statistics that show correlation and calling it causation from their patches. In reality, they're only preventing more fights from happening because of the ******** changes they are suggesting.
Sure, a few of them probably have some characters in some renter corps in nullsec. They might hop on and shoot some red crosses or rocks for a bit and then log off. They might even go on the occasional roam. But they sure as hell aren't involved in anything that actually makes a coalition function or any higher level gameplay. If they were, then they would see that these changes as they stand are ridiculous because of how easily this system can be broken by players and the fact that sov is basically not worth holding.
I mean, I like the gameplay style of having multiple combat points, but these changes won't actually cause fights. These will just be annoying runarounds with interdiction immune ships.
Don't get me wrong, it would be hilarious to see these changes come into effect as they have been suggested.
We would burn null to the ground. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:00:17 -
[1676] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:The opposite will probably happen. Stuffing people into a system work and spawned mega-coalitions. Now you need to do that in multiple systems at once. The best way to do that is HAVE A SUPER-MEGA COALITION lol. Why? If you stuff too many people into a single system, guess what your attacker should do then? He should reinforce things in a different constellation to draw more of your people there, while you do the exact same thing. Sooner or later one of you'll mess up and lose a system, or maybe both'll mess up and lose a system, and the next day you'll trade even more systems.
Jenn aSide wrote:It's because of a facet of human nature. People mistakenly believe human nature is about fighting. It's not, it's about surviving and succeeding, fighting is just a tool, like cooperation and politics. If cooperation offers more benefits that conflict, people cooperate, which is why changes CCP thought would create more conflict created more PEACE instead.
It's basically a corollary of Malcanis' law, the more you try to break up the big groups, the more reason the big groups have to exist.
If the past is any kind of predictor, This will be the same (bookmark this post so we can talk about it in July). If that's the case, then what we would've ended up with is that the CFC/N3 and friends would be the exact same entities today if we hadn't gotten dominion sov as a replacement for the POS-based system. And I doubt that'd be the case. The old system was way too dynamic and allowed too much of a multiple fronts war (where a day or two of absence could mean you lost the system, or at the very least lost a LOT of your control of that system, as opposed to today's week where you had to win just ONE fight whereas the attacker has to win each and every one of them) to end up with two coalitions spanning their own half of the map. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
300
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:01:36 -
[1677] - Quote
Myriad Blaze wrote:Quote:and the Industrial Index is obtained by mining in the system. So considering the new importance of maxing defense bonuses from occupancy, how is mining for a high industrial index better than grinding structures? If I wanted to shoot rocks, I could have stayed in high-sec. At least tie the industrial index to industry maybe? Probably in the form of building/producing stuff? Maybe even consider planetary industry. Quote:In the new Sovereignty system, each alliance will designate a four hour window through a new option available in the Corporation Management window to certain members of the alliance executor corp. This period will represent the allianceGÇÖs declared prime time, I assume the feedback so far makes it clear that (most) players think Prime Time is a bad idea. Please axe this. If you think about it for a moment, you might realize that locking out a significant portion of the playerbase from partaking in defensive ops for their alliances is a bad move, because you're denying them content. And forcing players into timezone based alliances would be silly, too. Also I don't see how a smaller alliance could have a chance to stand against a larger alliance within the new system. It seems it would be possible to just hellcamp the defender with a fleet of mains, have a two or three groups in fast ships ready to deal with stragglers, while using cheap throwaway alts in (relatively) cheap ships to zip around and reinforce ALL sov structures of the defending alliance in one sweep.
And then the hellcamp goes home half a week later and will have to run back to their taken space everyday for 4 hours to keep it that way.
The system makes it hard to hold space where you do not actually live. If you are actually living in the space a single ceptor is not a problem as it is pretty easy to kill with 2-3 dudes. For larger gangs - have to fight for the space - what a surprise.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:02:28 -
[1678] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Kah'Les wrote:You know NA. is just renters right? Pretty much all of whom would have no reason to continue to be renters after this change. NC.'s supercaps will be no particular threat to them. Sure, you can make an example of some, drop a supercap fleet and flip sov back . And then when you leave they just flip it back with a cruiser fleet, because they don't NEED caps to grind the HP now, just their magic laser.
Yeah, that's right instead you will be paying protection ISk or you will have your SOV flipped every 2nd day and no way to fight back because NC. is still gone be stronger than your 10 man corp.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:02:55 -
[1679] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:... the entire rationale behind the changes that need re-thinking. I'm sorry to inform you - but everything is already set in stone. There will not be any re-thinking. All you can hope for - is tweaking the specifics like minutes of cycle and power grid requirements. That's how agile development works. The sprints for conceptual designing has already run. The salaries were payed. Get your 3.0 version and enjoy it for the next 10 years. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:05:31 -
[1680] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Lord TGR wrote:... the entire rationale behind the changes that need re-thinking. I'm sorry to inform you - but everything is already set in stone. There will not be any re-thinking. All you can hope for - is tweaking the specifics like minutes of cycle and power grid requirements. That's how agile development works. The sprints for conceptual designing has already run. The salaries were payed. Get your 3.0 version and enjoy it for the next 10 years. I'm mostly happy with the underlying premise. There are a few things I think might need tweaking, but on the whole I'm positive to it. It's Jenn aSide who's saying there are deep, grievous flaws with it. I'm just wondering if these grievous flaws can be quantified, so I can see if I agree with Jenn or not. |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10057
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:09:21 -
[1681] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Kah'Les wrote:You know NA. is just renters right? Pretty much all of whom would have no reason to continue to be renters after this change. NC.'s supercaps will be no particular threat to them. Sure, you can make an example of some, drop a supercap fleet and flip sov back . And then when you leave they just flip it back with a cruiser fleet, because they don't NEED caps to grind the HP now, just their magic laser. The number of renters able to field and willing to welp a 30-man cruiser fleet to reclaim sov after you leave is MUCH higher than the number of renters who can both field and afford to lose a structure grinding fleet. Are you going to go blap every single one? With what? With who? How long until your supercap alts get bored of jumping 30 gates in order to blow up a 30 cruiser renter fleet? Not once a day, but four or five times a day because every renter and their multibox accounts can assemble a cruiser fleet to revolt. So you stop doing it in supercaps, and fly T3's because OMG WARP IS SLOW... only a 500 man T3/ishtar fleet is not the same kind of hammer that a 500 man supercap fleet is, and it STILL can't be everywhere at once. Oh, and while you were doing that, Brave came and flipped half your home systems in their Eagle fleets because they can. And if you DON'T get bored doing that, great. More explosions for everyone! The existing deterrent to sov conflict is structure grind, not supercaps. Supercaps were a deterrent to STRUCTURE GRIND, not sov conflict. If you remove structure grind, supercaps are short-circuited and stop being a deterrent to sov conflict. They will still be very useful for winning large strategic battles, but they do nothing to stop people from pecking away at your sov. ONLY active, live pilots in space during your prime time window will stop people from pecking away at your sov.
This is an unrealistic point of view here, basically a lack of understanding basic human nature. I've seen it before, the "if you just do X renters will rise up" thinking.
Won't happen, renting will still happen, because if renters were the general type to rise up, they wouldn't be renting in the 1st place. The game doesn't 'cause' behavior, it facilitates it.
This is also why CCPs past attempts to get people to 'do things' like leave high sec or fight each other more in null etc etc always fail. The people who will fight or leave high sec or whatever don't need any prodding, and the people who won't do those things can't be encouraged enough by 'rewards' to do so either. People bring a set of predispositions with them to the game, the game doesn't cause them.
|
Agent Known
Night Theifs DamnedNation
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:11:01 -
[1682] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Kah'Les wrote:You know NA. is just renters right? Pretty much all of whom would have no reason to continue to be renters after this change. NC.'s supercaps will be no particular threat to them. Sure, you can make an example of some, drop a supercap fleet and flip sov back . And then when you leave they just flip it back with a cruiser fleet, because they don't NEED caps to grind the HP now, just their magic laser. The number of renters able to field and willing to welp a 30-man cruiser fleet to reclaim sov after you leave is MUCH higher than the number of renters who can both field and afford to lose a structure grinding fleet. Are you going to go blap every single one? With what? With who? How long until your supercap alts get bored of jumping 30 gates in order to blow up a 30 cruiser renter fleet? Not once a day, but four or five times a day because every renter and their multibox accounts can assemble a cruiser fleet to revolt. So you stop doing it in supercaps, and fly T3's because OMG WARP IS SLOW... only a 500 man T3/ishtar fleet is not the same kind of hammer that a 500 man supercap fleet is, and it STILL can't be everywhere at once. Oh, and while you were doing that, Brave came and flipped half your home systems in their Eagle fleets because they can. And if you DON'T get bored doing that, great. More explosions for everyone! The existing deterrent to sov conflict is structure grind, not supercaps. Supercaps were a deterrent to STRUCTURE GRIND, not sov conflict. If you remove structure grind, supercaps are short-circuited and stop being a deterrent to sov conflict. They will still be very useful for winning large strategic battles, but they do nothing to stop people from pecking away at your sov. ONLY active, live pilots in space during your prime time window will stop people from pecking away at your sov. This is an unrealistic point of view here, basically a lack of understanding basic human nature. I've seen it before, the "if you just do X renters will rise up" thinking. Won't happen, renting will still happen, because if renters were the general type to rise up, they wouldn't be renting in the 1st place. The game doesn't 'cause' behavior, it facilitates it. This is also why CCPs past attempts to get people to 'do things' like leave high sec or fight each other more in null etc etc always fail. The people who will fight or leave high sec or whatever don't need any prodding, and the people who won't do those things can't be encouraged enough by 'rewards' to do so either. People bring a set of predispositions with them to the game, the game doesn't cause them.
People rent because they don't have a supercap fleet to grind down structures or defend themselves when they get welped. The current sov mechanics vastly favors alliances with large capital fleets who are able to grind structures very quickly. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:11:57 -
[1683] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Kah'Les wrote:You know NA. is just renters right? Pretty much all of whom would have no reason to continue to be renters after this change. Believe me, they will find a reason to pay the rent. It's just a state of mind, and you cant change it no matter what mechanics you will invent.
You know the dude who recently lost a Revenant? He is a renter in Impass. He has ISK to set SBUs. He has DPS to grind through IHUB. Did he do it? No. Will he capture a system after the change goes live? No. |
Serene Repose
2332
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:12:02 -
[1684] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
what makes you think i won't squash you for funsies we spent three months squashing anyone who dared mine gallente ice in highsec, what makes you think that every *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal. who raises a flag isn't going to look like a nail to swing my massive hammer at More fun for you then, so what exactly are you crying about? The fact that the idea is dumb and will be a waste of time? Just because someone benefits from a situation doesn't mean that can't see what's wrong with it. I can see you've given this a lot of thought. I'm sure come June a certain element will be crying like babies. I'll wager other players won't be. I'm so honored to be blessed with your deep and considered insight, however. Far be it from you to just sit in the cheap seats and hurl ridicule, right?
Treason never prospers. What is the reason?
Why, if it prospers, none dare call it "treason."
|
Siggy Afuklrang
ROC Academy ROC.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:13:47 -
[1685] - Quote
Well I thought this looked an awesome set of changes.
I'm loving the response, I have to wonder if all this sov holding stuff is so worthless then anybody wana pass me their sov. Seeing as there's no point in it......
It seems to me that lots of people want the world handed to them on a silver platter
|
Geddon Kabaal
Deutsche Entdecker United Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:14:28 -
[1686] - Quote
Please CCP make sure to avoid the TrollCeptor
I agree something stupid like this will happen:
Canaris:
Reactor Control Unit II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Entosis link thing
Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router I
or
Trolletto
Capacitor Power Relay II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
1MN Microwarpdrive II Sensor Booster II Sensor Booster II Sensor Booster II (120km locking Range)
Entosis link Thing 250km
Small Auxillary Thruster II Snall Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II |
Sigras
Conglomo
1009
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:14:43 -
[1687] - Quote
My question is what happens if I ninja a new TCU into place after I lose the first one? If i'm faster on the draw than anyone else do i get my system back? |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:14:54 -
[1688] - Quote
Agent Known wrote:People rent because they don't have a supercap fleet to grind down structures or defend themselves when they get welped. The current sov mechanics vastly favors alliances with large capital fleets who are able to grind structures very quickly. There's probably also a lot of people who rent, not because they don't have supercaps etc, but because they don't want to put in the effort to take space in the first place, or they just buy into the hype about someone being "super duper scary don't fight them they'll eat your firstborn". |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
348
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:15:27 -
[1689] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Yeah, that's right instead you will be paying protection ISk or you will have your SOV flipped every 2nd day and no way to fight back because NC. is still gone be stronger than your 10 man corp.
Sure, NC's 500 man T3 fleet will be stronger than the 100 man alliance trying to claim sov in a backwater. But to DEFEND, all they have to do is keep one defensive T1 E-link alive on their structures long enough to make it annoying for you. Which should be easy for them if they are living there. Can you eventually blow them up and flip sov? Sure. Of course, only one at a time; the other 50 renters were left alone that day. And you're going to keep doing this everyday, while Brave starts mounting a REAL war against your home systems because your standing supercap fleet is no longer any kind of deterrent to them?
I'm not trying to claim that somehow this change enables a 10-man alliance to suddenly hold sov in a place NC. actually wants to own. It IS, however, going to make it far easier for anyone and everyone to start real sov conflict/pressure with absolutely no worries over supercap fleet sizes. If this change drives conflict like it is intended to, you will frankly be too busy fighting real opponents to actually care about going back to flip a renter system that you don't actually want to own anyway. Which will be fine because you won't need the renter income to fight those real wars anyway, since you no longer need to be in a supercap race with your opponents and can actually fight sov wars in affordable ships that are fun to fly instead.
Supercaps will be part of endgame fleet battles required to totally nuke an opponent out of their final/home system. They WON'T be part of daily sov harassment because no structure grind means no structure grind fleets means far fewer fights escalating into cap battles because far MORE sov flipping hotpoints will spring up simultaneously across a warfront.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
180
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:15:34 -
[1690] - Quote
Geddon Kabaal wrote:Please CCP make sure to avoid the TrollCeptor
I agree something stupid like this will happen:
Canaris:
Reactor Control Unit II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Entosis link thing
Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router I
or
Trolletto
Capacitor Power Relay II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
1MN Microwarpdrive II Sensor Booster II Sensor Booster II Sensor Booster II (120km locking Range)
Entosis link Thing 250km
Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router I
http://i.imgur.com/3iy4TtX.jpg
countered |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10058
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:16:55 -
[1691] - Quote
Agent Known wrote:
People rent because they don't have a supercap fleet to grind down structures or defend themselves when they get welped. The current sov mechanics vastly favors alliances with large capital fleets who are able to grind structures very quickly.
People rent because they are renters. Before renting they would have been "pets".
The applicable old folsk saying that applies here is "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:17:01 -
[1692] - Quote
Agent Known wrote:People rent because they don't have a supercap fleet to grind down structures or defend themselves when they get welped. The current sov mechanics vastly favors alliances with large capital fleets who are able to grind structures very quickly. You dont need supercap ~fleet~. You only need 1 mothership. You cannot ~welp~ it unless you're brain dead.
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:17:54 -
[1693] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Yeah, that's right instead you will be paying protection ISk or you will have your SOV flipped every 2nd day and no way to fight back because NC. is still gone be stronger than your 10 man corp. Sure, NC's 500 man T3 fleet will be stronger than the 100 man alliance trying to claim sov in a backwater. But to DEFEND, all they have to do is keep one defensive T1 E-link alive on their structures long enough to make it annoying for you. Which should be easy for them if they are living there. Can you eventually blow them up and flip sov? Sure. Of course, only one at a time; the other 50 renters were left alone that day. And you're going to keep doing this everyday, while Brave starts mounting a REAL war against your home systems because your standing supercap fleet is no longer any kind of deterrent to them? I'm not trying to claim that somehow this change enables a 10-man alliance to suddenly hold sov in a place NC. actually wants to own. It IS, however, going to make it far easier for anyone and everyone to start real sov conflict/pressure with absolutely no worries over supercap fleet sizes. If this change drives conflict like it is intended to, you will frankly be too busy fighting real opponents to actually care about going back to flip a renter system that you don't actually want to own anyway. Which will be fine because you won't need the renter income to fight those real wars anyway, since you no longer need to be in a supercap race with your opponents and can actually fight sov wars in affordable ships that are fun to fly instead. Supercaps will be part of endgame fleet battles required to totally nuke an opponent out of their final/home system. They WON'T be part of daily sov harassment because no structure grind means no structure grind fleets means far fewer fights escalating into cap battles because far MORE sov flipping hotpoints will spring up simultaneously across a warfront.
NC. don't own SOV so your whole argument is invalied. All sov is rented out they have some systems just so we got beacons or a importent JB. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10058
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:18:29 -
[1694] - Quote
Serene Repose wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The "Protection" of tomorrow you speak of is todays rental agreement.
The new system will be great. Small groups can claim and hold sov. We have multiboxing alt corps holding down wormholes .. now some of those and more can move to holding their own piece of null. The only people who don't win are big coalitions .. and you have more than the means and resources to survive.
what makes you think i won't squash you for funsies we spent three months squashing anyone who dared mine gallente ice in highsec, what makes you think that every *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal. who raises a flag isn't going to look like a nail to swing my massive hammer at More fun for you then, so what exactly are you crying about? The fact that the idea is dumb and will be a waste of time? Just because someone benefits from a situation doesn't mean that can't see what's wrong with it. I can see you've given this a lot of thought. I'm sure come June a certain element will be crying like babies. I'll wager other players won't be. I'm so honored to be blessed with your deep and considered insight, however. Far be it from you to just sit in the cheap seats and hurl ridicule, right?
This seat isn't cheap, ti costs $15 per month. You know how many starving children that could have fed?
|
Geddon Kabaal
Deutsche Entdecker United Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:19:38 -
[1695] - Quote
Yeah and u Need to risk like 800M for every 100M(if the Link does cost about 80M)Ceptor on Grid if Attackers have a fleet on Standby...
bettter bring your own ceptor and ist only 4 hours you Need to fly around your Sovstruc to safe it ... |
Oberon Maulerant
Valor Evolved Order of Allied Knights
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:21:33 -
[1696] - Quote
I think that this may be a move to de-ice nullsec. Its going to force the bigger alliances to pare down ythe number of systems they control.
I think its gonna be sweet |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
180
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:21:48 -
[1697] - Quote
Geddon Kabaal wrote:Yeah and u Need to risk like 800M for every 100M(if the Link does cost about 80M)Ceptor on Grid if Attackers have a fleet on Standby... That fit can stand upto a fleet of 56 trollceptors = 5.6b in frigates vs a 1.2b BS
If it's just one or two then sure, you just drop an velator at zero and risk a 20mil module with a free hull |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
425
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:22:08 -
[1698] - Quote
Guys- there are 39 likes on the OP, this must mean that this is a good change and everyone likes it, thanks to Phoebe, right? |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:24:41 -
[1699] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:I'm mostly happy with the underlying premise. There are a few things I think might need tweaking, but on the whole I'm positive to it. It's Jenn aSide who's saying there are deep, grievous flaws with it. I'm just wondering if these grievous flaws can be quantified, so I can see if I agree with Jenn or not. Are you happy about the state of capital ships after the change? |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
263
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:25:47 -
[1700] - Quote
The sovereignty system Fozzie described in the dev blog he wrote is extremely poorly thought and half baked. CCP should just take it back to the drawing board and rethink. Meanwhile, perhaps they would also do well to review their assumptions about EVE players and how they behave and plan their actions in game. I'm going to write more about what I think are the peripheral causes as to why Fozzie and others are constantly failing later. For now, I'd like to elaborate on what I think is the central cause behind the dev team's shortsightedness.
It might be just that the faulty line of thought on the dev team's part is assuming that these poorly designed changes will result in people fighting more. I think they are expecting that they can really change bloc (and individual player) behavior solely through changing rules and mechanics and avoiding touching risk-reward balance.
They are wrong.
For instance, as Arrendis mentioned before, Encounter Surveillance Systems weren't adopted en masse by null residents. They were supposed to create fights. Because they did not see any serious adoption, not many fights were created through them.
Has any developer ever thought about why they weren't adopted by null residents?
More importantly, why is Fozzie's dev blog containing statistics makes him sound like an apologist, or worse, a distressed middle-level executive trying to defend his design through cooking up his numbers, when his plan obviously failed to achieve the intended objectives? If you look at the number carefully, Fozzie is only able to say 'hurray, my plan is doing okay and null sec pvp-related player deaths increased', because Pandemic Legion got bored and decided to farm HERO coalition. I especially laughed out loud and ended up spilling the Turkish coffee I've been sipping when I saw that Deklein region, the place I live in which is the Goon homeland, has seen PvP related losses decrease by 20% since Phoebe and Jump Fatigue hit. Fozzie isn't just doing a terrible job at re-imagining sovereignty, he is also doing a terrible job at covering his own back so that he and his plan can look good to his immediate superiors who no doubt track his so called progress.
I have said this before when Greyscale announced plans for Phoebe before and I'll say it again;
No amount of change and skewing of sandbox mechanics towards a theme park setting will result in players fighting and causing destruction just for the sake of doing so. People also will not fight and create destruction just so that Fozzie and CCP are appeased and are able to recite statistics without good analysis.
Holding space in null is currently is not worth much for all the effort and resources it takes. Even with these changes, it will still not be worth it.
EVE players will always collaborate, cooperate to minimize risks, and the instances of fights that they do not want to take.
The structures that make up the large entities cannot and will not be dismantled through the change of game play mechanics. You cannot change human behavior and tendency to socialize, cooperate and collude to further mutual goals through introducing ~bright ideas~ like this.
We need developers that are ruthlessly pragmatic and in possesion of first-hand knowledge and experience of life in nullsec to fix nullsec, not developers that moonlight as bright idea fairies that don't know the game and the mechanics they are working on. It's the second type of developers who always end up with introducing Hail Mary plans that are destined to fail like this one. |
|
Geddon Kabaal
Deutsche Entdecker United Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:26:12 -
[1701] - Quote
you might TANK 56 Ceptors, but as I understand u can fit 1 of these new Links and you Need 2 Ceptors to take sov over 1 whatevertanky ship, So will Need to bring like 50 Ships with 50 Links if the Attacker brings 50 Links to attack. Or did I missunderstand anything? |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
133
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:26:25 -
[1702] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Guys- there are 39 likes on the OP, this must mean that this is a good change and everyone likes it, thanks to Phoebe, right?
41 actually and counting.. the dev blog is so dense that you really need time to digest him. I just did, I was the 41st one to put a thumbs up. I will not be the last one.
|
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:27:50 -
[1703] - Quote
Hm...I'm going to have to post something longer later. My initial reaction...I don't understand the "Command Node" thing. Like, in the logical "universe of Eve", how does this make any sense? If you try to hack a computer in real life, do you then have to travel through several random databases that aren't connected to the initial one? If you were to try and hack Google, do you then have to go find a part of their network key on Sony's database and a part on Microsofts and collect them all? Can someone else go and find a key fragment on the city of New York's website to somehow block your progress?
Basically - this makes zero SENSE.
It also is weird when you attack a system but that Alliance doesn't have any of the other systems in that Constellation.
Just a thought, but why don't you make "fiefdoms"? Make it where you can only upgrade so much in a system, then you have to apply additional upgrades from neighboring systems, and then command nodes or whatever spawn in all systems "linked" to the one where the attack is? So I put an IHUBS in system X, but to boost Insustry to 4 and Military to 5, I have to have an extra structure in W that supports mining and Y and Z to allow the level 5.
Likewise, any more than 1 or 2 station service add-ons have to be placed in adjacent systems.
This way, there's a reason to hold and defend areas of space, and there isn officials to the Constrllation model. But smaller Alliances would hold mid-level (3?) systems.
Basically, like I said, fiefdoms - where you have the manor/keep and then the surrounding countryside supporting it.
At leas then the Command Node but would make...some vague logical sense?
.
But yeah, more later... |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
183
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:27:54 -
[1704] - Quote
Geddon Kabaal wrote:you might TANK 56 Ceptors, but as I understand u can fit 1 of these new Links and you Need 2 Ceptors to take sov over 1 whatevertanky ship, So will Need to bring like 50 Ships with 50 Links if the Attacker brings 50 Links to attack. Or did I missunderstand anything? You understand completely wrong.
Only 1 link per side matters so one defensive link counters out all the offensive links - meaning the ceptor gang has to nullify the defensive link to continue the grind.
Marauder works well because it can't just be jammed out by ECM and because it can tank a huge number of interceptors meaning that they need to bring something bigger or just give up and move to the next empty system.
You can also add pulses that hit out to 120km with a little fiddling on that fit :) |
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:27:58 -
[1705] - Quote
I have a suggestion to prevent griefing for griefing's sake:
Scale up the capture timer ALOT if any side is outnumbered. Scale it in real time. Empty systems (no occupants online) work at the minimal 10 min per capture level. Let the capture time scale up directly with the ratio, so if one side is outnumbered 3:1 the capture time goes up by a factor x3.
This way, a lone ceptor would need a 100 min to capture anything from under the nose of say 10 members in local. The defenders could easily finish up whatever they were doing, switch to a more appropriate ship, decide on a fitting, go get some snacks and then finally go and scare him off.
If the defenders are outnumbered, the same holds true: Instead of steamrolling a small group with superior forces, you give the underdog time to gather allies. And if the attacker doesn't like the long timer, he can withdraw forces to speed it up. Which in turn, would give the defenders at least a series of nice appripriately sizes fights. Of course the big guys will always have more reinforcements, but initially it would be the best tactic to give the occupants a "fair" fight, at least in terms of number of active pilots...
That way fighting at a numerical balance would always be a good tactic to capture. And as a side effect, caps would be pretty useful, people with more capitals would be at an advantage, because they can bring more DPS/EHP per pilot and can still keep the optimal 1:1 ratio...
It would be hard for the losing side to drag out the fight as well, because the winning side would just move unneeded forces elsewhere...
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
351
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:29:09 -
[1706] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Agent Known wrote:People rent because they don't have a supercap fleet to grind down structures or defend themselves when they get welped. The current sov mechanics vastly favors alliances with large capital fleets who are able to grind structures very quickly. You dont need supercap ~fleet~. You only need 1 mothership. You cannot ~welp~ it unless you're brain dead.
Sure, you only needed 1 supercap per structure grind. Each of which was a gigantic hotdrop magnet for anyone with a standing supercap fleet. And that still means you NEED 1 SUPERCAP PER STRUCTURE GRIND.
Now you only need 1 subcap pre structure grind. NO amount of "apex force projection" will worry you. You can structure grind an unlimited number of targets each day, for free, with nothing but an inty (or cruiser or even BS, whatever it ends up being) and not care in the slightest which (if any) get hotdropped by a supercap fleet. And dropping supercap fleets obviously becomes an inefficient and suboptimal defence against this. The optimal defense suddenly becomes having active pilots IN LOCAL in EACH SYSTEM that can defensive E-link on demand during prime time. e.g. occupancy, combined with roaming defense fleets that can quickly mobilize to counter more serious attacks and/or to "deplex" any control node timers that go live that day. Multiple mobile mixed-composition fleets will be the norm. Black ops bridging everywhere. etc. DAILY conflict, because why not? Why would you NOT go spend 50 cruisers or 100 cruisers to flip 20 or 50 CFC systems?
All the large coalition groups are talking about how much fun they will have rage-rolling scorched-earth-style all their backwater/renter sov, forgetting that all of your enemies will be doing the SAME THING, in the same cheap welpable ships, and it's only a matter of time before you remember how much you hate each other far more than backwater renters and start doing it TO EACH OTHER instead. Why would CFC use 100 cruisers to flip 100 renter systems when they suddenly realize they could use the same 100 cruisers to flip 50 NA. systems? |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:29:41 -
[1707] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Lord TGR wrote:I'm mostly happy with the underlying premise. There are a few things I think might need tweaking, but on the whole I'm positive to it. It's Jenn aSide who's saying there are deep, grievous flaws with it. I'm just wondering if these grievous flaws can be quantified, so I can see if I agree with Jenn or not. Are you happy about the state of capital ships after the change? I'll be happier with caps after the change, since they won't be usable to require the escalation to B-R levels over a single system's fate, without being able to hurt the other guy even more for his hubris. |
St'oto
Hell's Death Squad Templis CALSF
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:31:22 -
[1708] - Quote
Absolutely loving the "freeport mode." This will allow me (hopefully) to liquidate assets that are LOCKED in most regions of nullsec when I was involved in nullsec warfare. So absolutely loving this. As diplo has absolutely failed in getting these assets liquidated. People either don't respond, respond rather harshly (even though I'm giving them items for their market), or say "OK" and then use that opportunity as a free kill once I get into system.
So this way, I'll be able to have a fighting chance at recovering/liquidating some assets without corp hopping like crazy. This change is amazing! Anyone who disagrees with this change obviously doesn't have billions of isk locked down all over nullsec. Or is still currently involved in nullsec warfare so they are just waiting for the right opportunity when said station inevitably flips to an alliance that is blue with them. (or just doesn't care because they are absolutely rolling in isk and don't mind having their personal assets window littered with assets they can't recover.)
Heck, I like pretty much everything to do with this SOV change. I may end up going back to nullsec warfare once this get's fully implemented. As I left nullsec warfare and went into faction warfare because of said asset lockdown/current sov mechanics.
The only thing I don't like (and this is REALLY noted in a huge post in the Drifter specific thread from another devblog) is the fact that CCP pre-buffed drifters to ridiculous proportions because of these SOV changes when they didn't need to until said SOV changes were released. (Or rather when the module was actually added to the loot table.) So they pretty much made a new NPC in highsec completely useless again until these changes are put into effect. (That is assuming they will remain in high-sec at all.) Even when it comes to just purely having fun with them. Now no one is going to touch them until the loot table is added because of the "pre buff." As now your absolutely guaranteed to lose 1 ship regardless due to their buffs. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:38:18 -
[1709] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Sure, you only needed 1 supercap per structure grind. Each of which was a gigantic hotdrop magnet for anyone with a standing supercap fleet. And that still means you NEED 1 SUPERCAP PER STRUCTURE GRIND. Of course you will be hotdropped in an empty system 30 jump away from civilization (which is a typical renter system). Cool story bro. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
680
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:42:43 -
[1710] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:I especially laughed out loud and ended up spilling the Turkish coffee I've been sipping when I saw that Deklein region, the place I live in and the revered Goon homeland, has seen PvP related losses decrease by 20% since Phoebe and Jump Fatigue hit.[/b]
You have lots of numbers and assets to defend it, its location has something to do with it too, also the fact you sit behind a load of other CFC alliances. Since the reduction in jump range and jump fatigue Deklin has become even safer, in fact I am surprised the reduction was not greater. But it proves nothing, only how safe Deklin is!
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:43:08 -
[1711] - Quote
3 suggestions.
Suggestion: Limit the use of entosis links to valid squad commander/ wing commander/ Fleet command positions.
Sorry to the solo people who want to go out and screw with sov, but sov shouldn't be pingable by a solo troll inty. Requiring people in fleet leadership positions limits the amount of Entosis links you can bring with you and incentivises multiple fleets.
Suggestion: Allow alliances to name 1 Capital system that receives full RF times automatically.
As it stands the system i spend the most time in has a relatively low level of ratting and PvE occuring, primarily because it's 1 jump out of high sec, however it is where i PVP a lot and so does my alliance, it is by far the most active of all of our systems with a strong market and where we spend most of our time in game. That our staging/ capital/ most iconic system can be RFed with a ~17 minute timer is a bit of a joke and incredibly anti-climatic, it takes longer to RF a ratting system then an alliance staging? Give us a chance to defend pre-timer, heaven forbid we might want to do something other than sit in our home base every time we log in.
Suggestion: limit amount of timers that can occur in a constellation at once.
Probably the most striking thing about this proposed system is that you can spend a couple of hours RFing stuff with a couple of fleets, come back in 2 days and take an entire constellation in one night. I want sov to be more fluid but an entire constellation in 3 days is pretty OP. Is there such a thing as too fluid sov CCP? |
Ion Blacknight
The Graduates Forged of Fire
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:45:27 -
[1712] - Quote
I had the same response as Rena: the Command Node thing is very gamey, it has no logic to support it. Give us something we can begin to believe in.
This discourages me from having a lot of assets and market inventory in null. I can only imagine what major industrialists and cap/supercap owners are feeling.
The range of the entosis link needs to be short to ensure fights. We don't want kitey uncatchable entosisers as well as cloaky afk campers do we?
|
Iski Zuki DaSen
Icarus Academy
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:46:37 -
[1713] - Quote
question alliance A attack the tcu of the alliance B and succefully destroys it but allaince B has like 100 tcu in system and start onlining the 2nd tcu what will be in that case? |
Gevlin
House of the Dead Monkey SpaceMonkey's Alliance
255
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:48:49 -
[1714] - Quote
Should be interesting.
Sounds like modified football game with guns and a quarter back wearing a bullseye.
I think using a ship scanner will be handy as a hit squad searches ships with the unique module
Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again.
|
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:48:52 -
[1715] - Quote
I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.
And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
183
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:48:55 -
[1716] - Quote
Black Canary Jnr wrote:Suggestion: Limit the use of entosis links to valid squad commander/ wing commander/ Fleet command positions.
Sorry to the solo people who want to go out and screw with sov, but sov shouldn't be pingable by a solo troll inty. Requiring people in fleet leadership positions limits the amount of Entosis links you can bring with you and incentivises multiple fleets.
You realise I can make a fleet with an alt and put myself as squad leader and my alt as wing commander right? |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
354
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:49:44 -
[1717] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:NC. don't own SOV so your whole argument is invalied. All sov is rented out they have some systems just so we got beacons or a importent JB.
You think these semantic talking points will stop CFC from flipping all renter sov in NA., and you think NA. renters will keep paying fees to N3 when they are being daily harassed by CFC and Brave and any other ragtag cruiser fleet that comes their way, because suddenly NC.'s supers have no ability to prevent this just by existing?
It doesn't matter how you spin it, the NA. renter income will vanish from N3 coffers because rental income is, for all intents and purposes, a supercap fleet lease. And no one will need a supercap fleet lease in a nullsec with E-links.
This doesn't mean the concept of renting will suddenly disappear, or that arrangements won't be made, extortions, protection rackets, etc. But the days of controlling 4 or 5 regions by virtue of simply being able to -- when needed and once in a bluemoon -- CTA login a bunch of supercaps all at once, is gone once this change goes out. System control will first and foremost be dependent on local, active members capable of forming subcaps fleets during primetime vulnerability windows. This doesn't magically make large groups suddenly more vulnerable to small groups as far as regular subcap fleet battles go. But daily sov conflict, border skirmishes, and system flips will become the norm.
Further, alliance blue donut agreements become meaningless when the power to flip sov is put in the hands of every line member with a T1 subcap and not just the privileged supercap pilots. Again, ask yourself... why would Brave NOT take 50 cruisers and go flip CFC sov? They don't need command approval for this. They don't need to wait for a CTA or an approved FC. They aren't about to go lose supercaps. They probably don't even care about SRP.
All they need is a dozen bored people to raid the newbie hangar for T1 cruisers and go flip a quiet system, and if CFC doesn't bring a fleet to defend, welp, there goes that system. You think giant blue agreements at alliance command levels will have a chance of stopping bored line members from doing this every single day? Hell no. Alliance leaders will either have to acknowledge that they are at open war with their enemies and allow line members to do this kind of daily skirmishing, or else they are going to have to kick out half of their active line members.
No one playing EVE is NOT going to take 50 T1 cruisers to try and flip an enemy system from under the nose of their evil antagonist just because their alliance command says "don't do that". Take away my SRP, I don't care, I'll fund the T1 fleet myself. It's not like I'm losing dreads here. Take away my approved FC's, don't care, 10 bored guys with a convenient wormhole and lolfits can flip sov if we happen to find a particularly vulnerable/out of the way spot. Kick me out of the alliance? Sure, fine, only you'll be booting 50% of your active line members after a month in a system which rewards sov to anyone that can fly a subcap locally/at home during their primetime hours. Probably not a wise strategic move... |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:52:53 -
[1718] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Kah'Les wrote:NC. don't own SOV so your whole argument is invalied. All sov is rented out they have some systems just so we got beacons or a importent JB. You think these semantic talking points will stop CFC from flipping all renter sov in NA., and you think NA. renters will keep paying fees to N3 when they are being daily harassed by CFC and Brave and any other ragtag cruiser fleet that comes their way, because suddenly NC.'s supers have no ability to prevent this just by existing?
So you saying no one gone be able to defend SOV from big enteties? |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
427
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:53:17 -
[1719] - Quote
Here is a suggestion: CCP needs to actually listen to the nullsec CSM representatives (they are largely disregarding input from CSM reps with Sov changes). Or hire someone that is well versed in nullsec to actually work at CCP. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
183
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:55:48 -
[1720] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Here is a suggestion: CCP needs to actually listen to the nullsec CSM representatives (they are largely disregarding input from CSM reps with Sov changes). Or hire someone that is well versed in nullsec to actually work at CCP. Because the opinion of someone with a vested interest in keeping the blue donut is exactly what's needed to shake up null right? |
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
354
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:56:11 -
[1721] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Sure, you only needed 1 supercap per structure grind. Each of which was a gigantic hotdrop magnet for anyone with a standing supercap fleet. And that still means you NEED 1 SUPERCAP PER STRUCTURE GRIND. Of course you will be hotdropped in an empty system 30 jump away from civilization (which is a typical renter system). Cool story bro.
Have you seen the lengths people go to to get supercap kills? Are you shitting me? The only reason you'd NOT get hotdropped is if 1) they think it's a trap or 2) you managed perfect intel/opsec and no one knew it was going down. |
Geddon Kabaal
Deutsche Entdecker United Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:58:13 -
[1722] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:You understand completely wrong.
Only 1 link per side matters so one defensive link counters out all the offensive links - meaning the ceptor gang has to nullify the defensive link to continue the grind.
Marauder works well because it can't just be jammed out by ECM and because it can tank a huge number of interceptors meaning that they need to bring something bigger or just give up and move to the next empty system.
You can also add pulses that hit out to 120km with a little fiddling on that fit :)
If this is true I totally agree with you. |
Geanos
V I R I I Triumvirate.
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:59:45 -
[1723] - Quote
If you boys cannot be arsed to defend your TCU from an interceptor gang, then don't take sov. Just plant your POS, plex / rat all day log and get into POS shields when danger come your way, like you always do. If you want the 25% bonus for fuel reduction, then fight for it. Do a bit of math and if "estimated ship loss > ISK saved from having a TCU", don't plant the thing. And stop complaining, think more of what you can do. |
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:01:25 -
[1724] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Yeah, that's right instead you will be paying protection ISk or you will have your SOV flipped every 2nd day and no way to fight back because NC. is still gone be stronger than your 10 man corp. Sure, NC's 500 man T3 fleet will be stronger than the 100 man alliance trying to claim sov in a backwater. But to DEFEND, all they have to do is keep one defensive T1 E-link alive on their structures long enough to make it annoying for you. Which should be easy for them if they are living there. Can you eventually blow them up and flip sov? Sure. Of course, only one at a time; the other 50 renters were left alone that day. And you're going to keep doing this everyday, while Brave starts mounting a REAL war against your home systems because your standing supercap fleet is no longer any kind of deterrent to them? I'm not trying to claim that somehow this change enables a 10-man alliance to suddenly hold sov in a place NC. actually wants to own. It IS, however, going to make it far easier for anyone and everyone to start real sov conflict/pressure with absolutely no worries over supercap fleet sizes. If this change drives conflict like it is intended to, you will frankly be too busy fighting real opponents to actually care about going back to flip a renter system that you don't actually want to own anyway. Which will be fine because you won't need the renter income to fight those real wars anyway, since you no longer need to be in a supercap race with your opponents and can actually fight sov wars in affordable ships that are fun to fly instead. Supercaps will be part of endgame fleet battles required to totally nuke an opponent out of their final/home system. They WON'T be part of daily sov harassment because no structure grind means no structure grind fleets means far fewer fights escalating into cap battles because far MORE sov flipping hotpoints will spring up simultaneously across a warfront. NC. don't own SOV so your whole argument is invalied. All sov is rented out they have some systems just so we got beacons or a importent JB.
Dont don't try that BS. NC./N3 own NA. which rents out hundreds of systems. Therefore by proxy NC. have SOV. Stop playing childish games its pathetic. |
Jason Redfort
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:01:36 -
[1725] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Here is a suggestion: CCP needs to actually listen to the nullsec CSM representatives (they are largely disregarding input from CSM reps with Sov changes). Or hire someone that is well versed in nullsec to actually work at CCP.
Suggestion for the most CSM Members: Log in and play the game |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
300
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:02:44 -
[1726] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:I'm not a 100+ mil sp player, but if I was id be pissed.
I have 195 mil SP and I can fly everything but the four titans (which I could also fly if I would bother plugging in the skillbook).
I am not pissed.
The system, as it is presented seems to need a little additional polish, however, the principles under it are better than Dominion or POS Bash system in my opinion. After thinking it through I believe goons and majority of other current sov holders will be able to adapt to the new system without very serious shocks.
The key change will be that instead of 1 to 3 "star" FC's they will need to find or train a number of NCO's - the guys who are able to lead a squad or two. The current large alliances do have the sufficient member base to find these guys as all it takes is couple of brain-cells to rub together, the will and little experience to do "decent enough" job at leading ~10 .. 20 ships against 1 to 5 ships.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
165
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:02:52 -
[1727] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
We would burn null to the ground.
And you seem to assume no one will be attacking all the empty space you leave behind. The more you take the wider spread you get, the easier it is to just take what ever you eventually decide is not worth defending.
I get how strong CFC is, and in the short term how much chaos can be inflicted. But sooner or later you will start acting rationally.
EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
|
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
136
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:02:53 -
[1728] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Black Canary Jnr wrote:Suggestion: Limit the use of entosis links to valid squad commander/ wing commander/ Fleet command positions.
Sorry to the solo people who want to go out and screw with sov, but sov shouldn't be pingable by a solo troll inty. Requiring people in fleet leadership positions limits the amount of Entosis links you can bring with you and incentivises multiple fleets. You realise I can make a fleet with an alt and put myself as squad leader and my alt as wing commander right?
Yes i do, but then you are not a valid squad commander because you have no-one in your squad. If people want to lug alts around with them (squad member must be in same system to be valid/ receive boosts) to harass sov i don't mind, it's better than being able to do it with 1 account or even using your 2 accounts in different systems. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
183
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:03:03 -
[1729] - Quote
Geddon Kabaal wrote:Eli Apol wrote:You understand completely wrong.
Only 1 link per side matters so one defensive link counters out all the offensive links - meaning the ceptor gang has to nullify the defensive link to continue the grind.
Marauder works well because it can't just be jammed out by ECM and because it can tank a huge number of interceptors meaning that they need to bring something bigger or just give up and move to the next empty system.
You can also add pulses that hit out to 120km with a little fiddling on that fit :) If this is true I totally agree with you.
Introducing Entosis links wrote: Crucially, the process of exerting control over a structure using an Entosis Link cannot be sped up by using more links or more players.
If two or more Entosis Links belonging to different GÇ£sidesGÇ¥ are operational on the same structure at the same time, neither will have any effect and all capture will be paused. This remains true even if one side has more Links operational on the structure than the other side.
Welcome to the team :) |
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:04:25 -
[1730] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:lilol' me wrote:er mm have you checked the sov map lately? like northern associates? Been down in NA. space a lot in the last few months. Querious, Immensea, Omist, etc... So let's look at Querious. Querious has 95 systems, with 30 stations. If you want to be able to defend all of Querious for 4 hours, you need to have at least 1 guy sitting on all of those structures w/a sov laser. You want to be pro-active here, because it only takes 2 minutes for a T2 module to cycle once, and then start rendering the structure vulnerable - if it's still vulnerable when Prime Time exits, it can still be attacked. So that's 220 guys, right there. What're they in? Carriers? Something big, so it can survive being attacked? Well, no remote assistance, so if it's going to work like that, you need to be able to defend yourself against what the other guy's going to bring to bare. So maybe something big. And maybe your enemies use that knowledge to start killing your solo caps. Ok, but obviously, your caps aren't required to remain solo - you can bring in 2 more carriers, and trade off on the defensive sov lasering. And now that you've jumped, the enemy flakes off into a different system. How many capitals are you commiting to this? How many capital pilots are willing to just sit on their butts killing maybe a half-dozen cheap interceptors after 4 hours? The capital blobs aren't going to be the hammer they've been.
The threat is bigger.. Its like AFK clockers. People probably don't need to worry about them, but they won't do anything 'just incase' they do |
|
St'oto
Hell's Death Squad Templis CALSF
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:04:47 -
[1731] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Here is a suggestion: CCP needs to actually listen to the nullsec CSM representatives (they are largely disregarding input from CSM reps with Sov changes). Or hire someone that is well versed in nullsec to actually work at CCP. Because the opinion of someone with a vested interest in keeping the blue donut is exactly what's needed to shake up null right?
Couldn't have said it better myself. I do agree that some of the changes do need additional iteration. Like the Prime time thing. As it does screw ALOT OF people. But pretty much every other portion of this change is doing what it is intended to do, ENTIRELY shake up nullsec sov warfare. Which is an AMAZING thing. Sov null warfare has been boring as hell for 11 years now. (That's when I joined the game under my first, now sold character which is linked in my bio.) So I'm GLAD they are absolutely tipping sov warfare on it's head. It's PERFECT!
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:05:02 -
[1732] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Sure, you only needed 1 supercap per structure grind. Each of which was a gigantic hotdrop magnet for anyone with a standing supercap fleet. And that still means you NEED 1 SUPERCAP PER STRUCTURE GRIND. Of course you will be hotdropped in an empty system 30 jump away from civilization (which is a typical renter system). Cool story bro. Have you seen the lengths people go to to get supercap kills? Are you shitting me? The only reason you'd NOT get hotdropped is if 1) they think it's a trap or 2) you managed perfect intel/opsec and no one knew it was going down. facepalm.jpg Explain me exactly how your super gets tackled and who will light a cyno IF THERE IS NO ONE IN LOCAL (except for your alts and corpmates)? I dont have a super myself, but my corpmate and my ally mates did use supers ninja-style many times. They are still safe and sound. Also, there is not such thing as "standing supercap fleet", FYI. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:06:28 -
[1733] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Kah'Les wrote:NC. don't own SOV so your whole argument is invalied. All sov is rented out they have some systems just so we got beacons or a importent JB. You think these semantic talking points will stop CFC from flipping all renter sov in NA., and you think NA. renters will keep paying fees to N3 when they are being daily harassed by CFC and Brave and any other ragtag cruiser fleet that comes their way, because suddenly NC.'s supers have no ability to prevent this just by existing? So you saying no one gone be able to defend SOV from big enteties?
Yes, no one will be able to defend their sov from a big entity that wants to take and HOLD their sov.
BUT, the people living there will have the overwhelming advantages. Who cares if someone from the other half of the map roams through and flips your sov today? (if they even can... a 50 man inty fleet won't even START the timer on anything if you stick a T1 E-link on a brick tanked BS). Worst case, you can flip it back next week like nothing happened with your 50-man T1 fleet. It's not like that large foreign entity is actually going to show up and defend the timers on every system they troll flipped last week. And then they probably won't be back for a year, because null is pretty big. It was a minor inconvenience, not an invasion of your home. Sov flips will be a random inconvenience of daily life that are easily reset. |
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:07:30 -
[1734] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:
We would burn null to the ground.
And you seem to assume no one will be attacking all the empty space you leave behind Except goons dont leave empty space behind even in full blown total eve sov war, theres still hundreds of plebs back in deklein/branch/vale
|
Corey Lean
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
69
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:08:45 -
[1735] - Quote
In the rear with the gear |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:09:06 -
[1736] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Explain me exactly how your super gets tackled and who will light a cyno IF THERE IS NO ONE IN LOCAL (except for your alts and corpmates)? I dont have a super myself, but my corpmate and my ally mates did use supers ninja-style many times. They are still safe and sound.
I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said it was not safe. And it isn't. And it's definitely not something your average 1 year old 30-man or 50-man group can afford to try and do. And certainly not something a large alliance can allow their line members to try and do on a regular basis as part of their sov conflict with another large alliance.
Skia Aumer wrote:Also, there is not such thing as "standing supercap fleet", FYI.
Just because you may not have a red batphone doesn't mean they don't exist.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30757
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:09:19 -
[1737] - Quote
Looking at the dev blog again, I'm sensing apologies for game design based on hardware load balancing? Spread everyone out over a constellation to reduce Tidi?
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:10:57 -
[1738] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:lilol' me wrote:er mm have you checked the sov map lately? like northern associates? Yeah. Did you read the dev blog? Explain how NA.'s 9000 members will defend 500 systems every day during prime time? All the titan bridges and caps in the world will not allow NA. to project all 9000 members to every constellation that requires defense during every 4 hour window every single day. Supercap fleets will lock down one or two constellations at best. OR supercaps will be spread around to raise the cost/barrier to flip a constellation, while at the same time isolating them and making them vulnerable to anyone willing to commit to that cost. And if NA. CAN, then power to them. They should be rewarded for their military effort with control over a lot of systems.
OK look, NC/N3 rent ONE SYSTEM PER GROUP at least some may rent a few more systems. Pretty much nearly every system, is rented. Therefore there is someone renting EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM and paying ridiculous amounts of ISK to do so. Therefore they have those people already living in the system, therefore no one has to travel anywhere to defend anything. You forget NA. is a renter alliance with hundreds of different corps that are not really an alliance its just a holding alliance effectively. If you are paying billions of ISK to rent, then you are going to defend it, if it only takes a small sub cab to do so. before renters wouldn't get involved because you needed a super cap fleet.
The only thing that will change it all, is if the renters grow some brains and balls, stop paying rent and flip the sov. Lets hope so eh! |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:10:59 -
[1739] - Quote
Princess Cherista wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:
We would burn null to the ground.
And you seem to assume no one will be attacking all the empty space you leave behind Except goons dont leave empty space behind even in full blown total eve sov war, theres still hundreds of plebs back in deklein/branch/vale
I don't think anyone has a problem with that. If the alliance has line members living in the system, of course they should be able to hold that system. That's kind of the entire point of this mechanic; it pretty much boils down to occupancy == sov, where occupancy is now anyone who can fly just about any reasonable subcap fit; instead of supercap == sov. |
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
62
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:11:16 -
[1740] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Looking at the dev blog again, I'm sensing apologies for game design based on hardware load balancing? Spread everyone out over a constellation to reduce Tidi?
Considering it was outright stated in the intro...
Harry Saq for CSM X
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
183
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:12:05 -
[1741] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Looking at the dev blog again, I'm sensing apologies for game design based on hardware load balancing? Spread everyone out over a constellation to reduce Tidi? Game design based around gameplay, who would have thought of such a dastardly plan? :) |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:12:23 -
[1742] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:
OK look, NC/N3 rent ONE SYSTEM PER GROUP at least some may rent a few more systems. Pretty much nearly every system, is rented. Therefore there is someone renting EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM and paying ridiculous amounts of ISK to do so. Therefore they have those people already living in the system, therefore no one has to travel anywhere to defend anything.
Why would ANY of these people keeping paying rent to N3 after this change? Rent is a supercap lease. After this change, exactly 0 of these groups need a supercap lease to hold sov. They won't be renters anymore, they'll be independent sov-holding alliances.
|
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:13:26 -
[1743] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Explain me exactly how your super gets tackled and who will light a cyno IF THERE IS NO ONE IN LOCAL (except for your alts and corpmates)? I dont have a super myself, but my corpmate and my ally mates did use supers ninja-style many times. They are still safe and sound. I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said it was not safe. And it isn't. And it's definitely not something your average 1 year old 30-man or 50-man group can afford to try and do. And certainly not something a large alliance can allow their line members to try and do on a regular basis as part of their sov conflict with another large alliance. Skia Aumer wrote:Also, there is not such thing as "standing supercap fleet", FYI. Just because you may not have a red batphone doesn't mean they don't exist.
no such thing as a standing super cap fleet? Hmm perhaps not, but there is usually a standing super cap channel, and a standing jabber channel, which is effectively the same thing. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:13:28 -
[1744] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Explain me exactly how your super gets tackled and who will light a cyno IF THERE IS NO ONE IN LOCAL (except for your alts and corpmates)? I dont have a super myself, but my corpmate and my ally mates did use supers ninja-style many times. They are still safe and sound. I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said it was not safe. And it isn't. And it's definitely not something your average 1 year old 30-man or 50-man group can afford to try and do. And certainly not something a large alliance can allow their line members to try and do on a regular basis as part of their sov conflict with another large alliance. Logging in you super is not safe too. You have proved my point. Renters will always find reasons to pay rent. |
Benilopax
The Ashen Lion Syndicate The Ashen Syndicate
441
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:13:58 -
[1745] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Looking at the dev blog again, I'm sensing apologies for game design based on hardware load balancing? Spread everyone out over a constellation to reduce Tidi?
Nothing wrong with avoiding lag and tidi fest, two massive fleets fighting over an objective in different systems, is still two massive fleets fighting over an objective.
...
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2825
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:15:55 -
[1746] - Quote
Off TZ members can still attack/defend POS/POCOs, and they can harass farmers - maybe to the point where holding a station no longer has value.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
263
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:16:00 -
[1747] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Here is a suggestion: CCP needs to actually listen to the nullsec CSM representatives (they are largely disregarding input from CSM reps with Sov changes). Or hire someone that is well versed in nullsec to actually work at CCP.
Indeed, they should. I don't think we can name any other game on MMO market that has a developer team with a chronic inability to understand it's player driven dynamics and narratives. |
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
31
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:16:24 -
[1748] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:lilol' me wrote:
OK look, NC/N3 rent ONE SYSTEM PER GROUP at least some may rent a few more systems. Pretty much nearly every system, is rented. Therefore there is someone renting EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM and paying ridiculous amounts of ISK to do so. Therefore they have those people already living in the system, therefore no one has to travel anywhere to defend anything.
Why would ANY of these people keeping paying rent to N3 after this change? Rent is a supercap lease. After this change, exactly 0 of these groups need a supercap lease to hold sov. They won't be renters anymore, they'll be independent sov-holding alliances.
Well lets hope so... but they would need to do it en masse, rather one by one because what will happen is the coalition will lhotdrop kick them out and then put someone back in, and tell them to behave or else. You know the usual stuff, if you don't do as we tell you we will destroy you trick, which usually works for the weak. The threat is usually enough to keep people on side. |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
165
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:17:41 -
[1749] - Quote
Princess Cherista wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:
We would burn null to the ground.
And you seem to assume no one will be attacking all the empty space you leave behind Except goons dont leave empty space behind even in full blown total eve sov war, theres still hundreds of plebs back in deklein/branch/vale
Granted, and they will be leaving a new supply of plebs in these new systems they conquer? I get what you are saying, but eventually something will give. I am mostly saying, the universe is not centered on one organizations actions alone, everyone will have their own plans. I respect the CFC and their ability to organize vast numbers of pilots. But I am not sure this will be an instant win button by any means.
EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
|
RadiantShadow
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:18:50 -
[1750] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Proton Stars wrote:I'm not a 100+ mil sp player, but if I was id be pissed. I have 195 mil SP and I can fly everything but the four titans (which I could also fly if I would bother plugging in the skillbook). I am not pissed. The system, as it is presented seems to need a little additional polish, however, the principles under it are better than Dominion or POS Bash system in my opinion. After thinking it through I believe goons and majority of other current sov holders will be able to adapt to the new system without very serious shocks. The key change will be that instead of 1 to 3 "star" FC's they will need to find or train a number of NCO's - the guys who are able to lead a squad or two. The current large alliances do have the sufficient member base to find these guys as all it takes is couple of brain-cells to rub together, the will and little experience to do "decent enough" job at leading ~10 .. 20 ships against 1 to 5 ships.
I love the fact that this change will force this. That no longer is it like you said 1 or 2 FC's commanding a wing. Now squad leaders really will be a "thing" that has to happen.
It is a huge step to actual fleets, not just a blob pushing F1, now people will have to think and act as a team. |
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
315
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:18:59 -
[1751] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: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. Yes. And completely no. If you are having to bring your forces in from outside, as a remote owner absolutely yes. If you are as the design intends living in the system, then one really does not have an issue here. The advantage lies with active engaged players occupying and defending their home. THAT is the whole point.
We're talking about defending every single target versus a contestant-removal fleet of easily 40+ people. Just how many players do you expect to live from the revenue of a single system?
The minimum competitive force would IMO consist of everyone living in that whole constellation - which would then again face the problem of defensive points being spread over that constellation's systems *3 structures each (*30! command nodes in case of RF timer)
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin. Black Legion.
2001
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:21:51 -
[1752] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Here is a suggestion: CCP needs to actually listen to the nullsec CSM representatives (they are largely disregarding input from CSM reps with Sov changes). Or hire someone that is well versed in nullsec to actually work at CCP. Indeed, they should. I don't think we can name any other game on MMO market that has a developer team with a chronic inability to understand it's player driven dynamics and narratives. Two things...
First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).
Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.
Would you like to know more?
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
428
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:22:03 -
[1753] - Quote
St'oto wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Here is a suggestion: CCP needs to actually listen to the nullsec CSM representatives (they are largely disregarding input from CSM reps with Sov changes). Or hire someone that is well versed in nullsec to actually work at CCP. Because the opinion of someone with a vested interest in keeping the blue donut is exactly what's needed to shake up null right? Couldn't have said it better myself. I do agree that some of the changes do need additional iteration. Like the Prime time thing. As it does screw ALOT OF people. But pretty much every other portion of this change is doing what it is intended to do, ENTIRELY shake up nullsec sov warfare. Which is an AMAZING thing. Sov null warfare has been boring as hell for 11 years now. (That's when I joined the game under my first, now sold character which is linked in my bio.) So I'm GLAD they are absolutely tipping sov warfare on it's head. It's PERFECT! EDIT: But if they keep the prime time thing. When I eventually go back to nullsec, I will be picking a heavy US focused alliance. Considering I'm in the US. That way I won't have a headache every time something needs to be defended.
You both have no clue what you're talking about.
Null warfare sucks as it is, yes. However, this change won't suddenly make these blocs split up or go to war with each other. There is still no reason to actually fight for nullsec space- we'll probably even give some up simply because we literally don't see a reason to pay for that system's sov cost.
Sure, some local hooligans will come try to harass us. Just as they do with literally every patch that is supposed to ruin the blue doughnuts. Once we crush them, as we usually do, they'll go back to just hot dropping afk ratters and claiming a moral victory. Who cares.
These changes will not affect the problems with null.
Here is what will happen: 1) Large entities will give up a lot of their renter lands because CCP 2) Smaller groups will move into that space and claim it as "their own" 3) Large entities will then harass the **** out of those small groups until they either leave or sign evilweasel's pledge to The Mittani 4) Smaller groups will then complain that they still can't get into null and that the large blue doughnut groups aren't fighting each other
CCP is yet again showing poor understanding of how the game is actually played with these suggested changes.
And for the record, I hate having a blue doughnut. I want to see more stuff blown up; everywhere. There is simply no reason or benefit to break up any alliances because you would be kneecapping yourselves. |
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:22:43 -
[1754] - Quote
To quote you
"GÇó In-space activity should be encouraged and rewarded"
I really don't see much reward to holding SOV space. Especially in drone regions that had their rewards completely removed. The place is a waste land because of it.
This seems like all it would do is make nullsec space SOV much more volatile for a season until people realized that the rewards for holding SOV no longer worth the risk of trying to keep it. If people believe there is a high chance that they will lose their assists due to SOV changes etc... and they are only grinding a small % better return on their time over high or lowsec, than they aren't going to see nullsec as appealing. The rewards need match the risk.
I see highsec population increasing do to this. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:23:33 -
[1755] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Are you happy about the state of capital ships after the change?
I am. I love tooling around in my nid in cruiser fleets, taking gates, knocking ishtars out of my way... |
DragonZer0
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:24:02 -
[1756] - Quote
I've sat down and read the sov. changes and a good portion of the post plus hearing people complain over coms. I do agree that sov. needs a change but this way has some advantages over the current and former two that had been used. First off as the Angry Mustache the Entosis Link should only be on a Battleship or capital that gives them a meaningful role in this new change and keeps ships such as a Trolletto or the like from being completely OP and the only thing that is risked by the aggressor's force.
The changes in the Prime Time is completely BullSh*t how are the off the prime tz people suppose to make a meaningful contribution to there alliances if they can't be log to even run or help defend there space. I know this is a complaint for this portion but a 4 hour window when your whole sov. becomes vulnerable that bloody insane idea.
Instead of prime time there should be a use for SBU or rename them Sovereignty block protectors or something of the like that have to be taken over/knocked offline for the system to become vulnerable.
Then you can lay siege to Station/TCU/IHUB also further note to this part your suggested time are way to short on them even with the system being completely maxed out. the SBP should only take 10 minutes at the min 40 at the max to go offline per each SBP that in that system.
Station/TCU/IHUB time should be 30 minutes at 0% index and 1.5 hours at max index then reinforced to come out at the defender prime time where they have the best chance of getting the highest numbers to defend there space be it exactly 48 hours from now to a bit less that up the when the defenders put the exit to reinforcement.
The Entosis Link them selves the tech1 version is fine at 25km the tech2 at 250km is way to long should be reduced down to 100km that way a battleship could still use it mjd to try and get away from something that attacking it while it using the Entosis Link.
Oh that reminds me that your trying to make nodes spread out across a constellation that in itself is a very interesting idea as it prompts smaller groups fighting over the area but I believe you have this wrong. After the reinforcements the nodes should stay in the same system to capture that system not be spread out across the constellation.
There should be something for constellation control after all system have been switched but I don't have the slightest idea how to put that into words to make it work.
This is some suggestion to how to make this new system work although I'm more then likely forgetting something or missing other aspects to this new way your trying to put reset nullsec.
Further note Nullsec as a whole is mostly worthless or completely worthless. before you start doing the sov changes you need to make all nullsec worth it to own. Not just the moons but the system itself. Currently I live in a -.7 space and on the average day even running 3 accounts running high end anoms if there no one else running them in system I have barely enough to keep my 3 accounts from having to change from high anoms to something lower. My point is a -.7 system has trouble keeping up with my ratting habits then what about the lower sec system? This should be addressed and fixed before the sov changes. Yes I know I'm not including belt ratting and mining but I personally don't use that to make my isk.
Quick propitiation on this is to make the 0.0 space either equal to a -1.0 as a whole in terms of spawning and triple the all the anoms spawns with every system starting with rally points to Sanctum. In doing it this way all nullsec is worth while to live and own.
As for npc nullsec I truly have no idea what to do with that area of space but it needs to be changed also.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:25:00 -
[1757] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game. I see what you did there, but I'm pretty certain we'll be able to weather these changes just fine. |
Gorgof Intake
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:25:14 -
[1758] - Quote
Read a fair bit of the feedback thread as well as the Dev Blog and my opinion is this.
The Good
1. Multiple content nodes spread across a constellation will introduce strategic geography, which is currently lacking in Eve. Particularly in coalition sized warfare, this could mean multiple respawns of command nodes (10, 15, 20 nodes all online within a single constellation requiring delegated command to sub-FCs for a SINGLE TCU. Imagine a major offensive with multiple systems attacked at once= 40-50 command nodes to be defended)
2. Removal of n+1 mechanics on sov structures (no more super grind ops for example)
3. Disentanglement of capture processes: attacking a tcu effects the tcu. Attacking the station effects the station etc.
4. Acknowledgement of, and attempting (poorly but ill get into that) to introduce meaningful content for time-poor players (10-30min Ops can now have a tangible effect on Sov)
5. Free-port idea is a great idea. So much potential for mayhem.
6. Encouraging the idea of asymmetric warfare doctrines (hit and run from smaller entities against sprawling empires)
The Bad
1. 4hr windows of offensive Ops are far too small a window to effectively conduct 'coalition level' warfare. This will need to be streched out to 6hrs minimum. If it isnt, coalitions will dissolve into TZ centric playerbases and everyone will just set against their own tz. A strong AUtz alliance would be a perfect example of this. No one could fight us but neither could we effect their sov, so it would just mean regulating non prime time Ops to damaging POS networks etc. BOOOORING.
2. Station timers being the only thing non 'primetimers' can probably effect as non-primetime.
3. Still maintaining this generic "sov mining lazor" ****. Worst part about FW plexing was the boring mechanic of orbiting a generic point on the same type of grid. In the Sov version you just orbit while you Sov mine.
4. Still no tactical geography. By breaking up the blobs into these little "command node" missions, CCP lost a good opportunity for fights to be varied by adding elemental or environmental effects that would only effect a particular grid. For example, a command node that spawned in a dense asteroid field that needs to be navigated, or a grid that has bonuses to shield tanks or some ****. Varied tactical environments providing varied game play and necessitating specific gang types while punishing generic "one fleet fits all mentality". If interested in this idea, check out the posts in my sig
5. Still no real reason to hold sov, though this will probably be addressed in phase 3 I would imagine.
6. Supers now nerfed into the ground and. quoting Manny apparently "will be used primarily as suitcases".
The Unknown
1. Fitting requirements for the Sov Mining Lazor I and II variant. This is a big deal as this will really define the way this Sov mechanic pans out.
2. Whether or not the Command Nodes will continue to spawn/ carry over the "prime time" limits. This is where shoulder TZs could come into their fore. A running battle for Sov could potentially last into another TZ so having a strong AUtz to "carry the day" as it were might become a critical capability of transnational coalitions, especially US based ones. Another example would be EU to East Coast US alliances.
3. Why bother holding sov beyond the ability to carebear in greater density
4. No talk whatsoever about POS mechanic changes
Overall, good start and good attempt at challenging the status quo of nullsec mentalities. "Useful duders" and middle tier FCs are going to become critical assets to alliances far more than rank and file members will be.
This should provide a very fluid battle front but the restrictions in "prime timers" and the lack of imagination for tactical environment means that the fights will still end up being very generic and boring and also not really incorporate the need to diversify a corps roster. Pvpers and line members are still going to be the focal point of alliances rather than recruiting from all aspects of Eve life.
TL:DR= Good start but needs more dog. Also, be brave and actually make some imaginative changes rather than relying on genericism. No one wants to orbit cans mining sov any more than they want to bash it with a Super.
Some Thoughts on Sov Mechanics
DEADPACKS: Alternative Sov Mechanic
|
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
31
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:26:08 -
[1759] - Quote
remove sov, make everything NPC 0.0. With the ability for alliances to build stations there. Simple |
Brakoo
Shiva Nulli Secunda
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:26:36 -
[1760] - Quote
I am concerned about the roles iHubs play in the new system. I would hope that their size/build costs are looked at to make deploying them less of a burden that either requires Access to Titans and a Jump Bridge network, or a large escort fleet. |
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
185
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:27:28 -
[1761] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:We're talking about defending every single target versus a contestant-removal fleet of easily 40+ people. Just how many players do you expect to live from the revenue of a single system?
The minimum competitive force would IMO consist of everyone living in that whole constellation - which would then again face the problem of defensive points being spread over that constellation's systems *3 structures each (*30! command nodes in case of RF timer)
If it's just a roaming inty gang, then it's dealt with simply by a handful of people just putting a defensive link up and preventing the structure from being RF'd.
A full 'conquest' fleet will need heavier ships than intys and can be fought at gates and entrances into your constellation and might well need backup from further away, that's fair enough, if you can't handle them solo at the time then you'll have to have a bigger fleet ready when the RF timers finish a couple of days later otherwise yep, you lost it.
There's still a chance to turn up en-masse two days later if your primary defences fail at keeping it out of RF.
edit: The spanner in the works is deciding which RF timers were just someone trolling you and which were actual strategic objectives from your enemies and trying to spread out your jumpnerfed fleets to tackle all of these objectives during the 4 hour window each day as well as continuing your primary defences. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
429
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:27:39 -
[1762] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Two things...
First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).
Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.
We actually reach out to CSM members to get input on why these changes suck so much if the CSM was counselled on them first. The response was "we told them, they didn't listen".
If you think this will ruin our game, you're in for a harsh reality check.
We have worked around every single change that CCP has made since our inception. Much to public dismay, we aren't looking to destroy Eve Online the Spaceship Game, as most of us are addicted to it and rely on its success. Our suggestions and input through the CSM aren't "This is what is best for CONDI"; they are "This is what is best for Eve". No matter what change happens, we'll be one of the first to adapt and succeed after the changes, as we have always done. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:28:48 -
[1763] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:would need to do it en masse, rather one by one because what will happen is the coalition will lhotdrop kick them out and then put someone back in, and tell them to behave or else. You know the usual stuff, if you don't do as we tell you we will destroy you trick, which usually works for the weak. The threat is usually enough to keep people on side. Exactly! CEO of nullbear corp: Guys, today we capture the system we live in. Jump in your T1 cruisers and let's roll! nullbears: Oh noes! They will hotdrop us! They have standing jabber fleet! The resistance is futile... We better go kill some rats to be able to pay our rent. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:31:04 -
[1764] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).
Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.
Or, you know, that the CSM is under NDA, which means they can't tell you if they were consulted and/or agree with it. |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
116
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:32:52 -
[1765] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote: The Bad[/b][/u] 4. Still no tactical geography. By breaking up the blobs into these little "command node" missions, CCP lost a good opportunity for fights to be varied by adding elemental or environmental effects that would only effect a particular grid. For example, a command node that spawned in a dense asteroid field that needs to be navigated, or a grid that has bonuses to shield tanks or some ****. Varied tactical environments providing varied game play and necessitating specific gang types while punishing generic "one fleet fits all mentality". If interested in this idea, check out the posts in my sig
5. Still no real reason to hold sov, though this will probably be addressed in phase 3 I would imagine.
6. Supers now nerfed into the ground and. quoting Manny apparently "will be used primarily as suitcases".
[u] [u][b]
4. I agree there's no tactical geography, and like your idea (it would be so cool to hide fleets in magnetic fields created by the sun, or the moon, or hide in an asteroid belt, etc), but I don't want to play a mini game while playing a PvP game every time I'm trying to take someone's sov.
5. Building your own supers, though outsourcing it to alts/renters is probably what most people are doing/have done. In addition to that, I refer you to my previous post:
Tiberian Deci wrote:GOB the Magician wrote:Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this. I can think of several: You enjoy living there You enjoy living with the people there you live with You enjoy fighting your neighbors nearby If that isn't the case for you maybe you're better of in highsec. Or renting.
6. Supers are still useful for killing caps, but if PL is going to stop doing that with them I don't think anyone would be sad. (Side note, is Manny really being used as a suitcase? Sounds like quite a journey, from respected PL member, to CSM candidate, to suitcase :O) |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:32:58 -
[1766] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).
Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.
Or, you know, that the CSM is under NDA, which means they can't tell you if they were consulted and/or agree with it. that is not what an nda does |
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:34:09 -
[1767] - Quote
Another note.
This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.
Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:34:35 -
[1768] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Arrendis wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).
Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.
Or, you know, that the CSM is under NDA, which means they can't tell you if they were consulted and/or agree with it. that is not what an nda does
That would depend entirely on the specific wording of the NDA, and precisely what it is they're not allowed to disclose, now wouldn't it? |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:39:13 -
[1769] - Quote
Logan Revelore wrote:I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.
And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely.
Logan Revelore wrote:Another note.
This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.
Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo. I like this man. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:45:04 -
[1770] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Arrendis wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).
Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.
Or, you know, that the CSM is under NDA, which means they can't tell you if they were consulted and/or agree with it. that is not what an nda does That would depend entirely on the specific wording of the NDA, and precisely what it is they're not allowed to disclose, now wouldn't it? pretty sure it's okay
hint: scroll to sion_kumitomo's entry |
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
186
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:47:38 -
[1771] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Logan Revelore wrote:I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.
And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely. Logan Revelore wrote:Another note.
This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.
Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo. I like this man. Cap escalation will still be a thing - if you end up pitting two subcap fleets against each other, eventually triage becomes a valid tactic which then means you might want dreads on grid which then means you might want supers on.
Prime time is not good as it is, I agree - I've liked the suggestions for spreading out primetime over longer periods as an alliance grows - either on a system by system basis or on a base member count for the whole alliance maybe upto 16 or even a full 24 hours - whilst still keeping it small and manageable for a small alliance to guard their handful of systems.
I'm sure CCP can tie some lore into the command points as required. It's better to have good mechanics and then write a story around those then have crap mechanics because the original lore didn't fit imho. |
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:53:21 -
[1772] - Quote
i just read the whole thing again, and i have to say it sounds and looks very very complicated. I thought CCP was trying to get away from complicated. Looks like its been thought about a little too much and made way over complicated.
Also why do we never hear from CCP Seagull on anything? |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
178
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:53:47 -
[1773] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:
We would burn null to the ground.
And you seem to assume no one will be attacking all the empty space you leave behind. The more you take the wider spread you get, the easier it is to just take what ever you eventually decide is not worth defending. I get how strong CFC is, and in the short term how much chaos can be inflicted. But sooner or later you will start acting rationally.
All I heard was a bunch of bees shouting "Challenge Accepted!"
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:55:27 -
[1774] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Logan Revelore wrote:I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.
And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely. Logan Revelore wrote:Another note.
This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.
Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo. I like this man. Cap escalation will still be a thing - if you end up pitting two subcap fleets against each other, eventually triage becomes a valid tactic which then means you might want dreads on grid which then means you might want supers on. Prime time is not good as it is, I agree - I've liked the suggestions for spreading out primetime over longer periods as an alliance grows - either on a system by system basis or on a base member count for the whole alliance maybe upto 16 or even a full 24 hours - whilst still keeping it small and manageable for a small alliance to guard their handful of systems. I'm sure CCP can tie some lore into the command points as required. It's better to have good mechanics and then write a story around those then have crap mechanics because the original lore didn't fit imho.
You are doing God's work sir. |
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:57:54 -
[1775] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Logan Revelore wrote:I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.
And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely. Logan Revelore wrote:Another note.
This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.
Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo. I like this man. Cap escalation will still be a thing - if you end up pitting two subcap fleets against each other, eventually triage becomes a valid tactic which then means you might want dreads on grid which then means you might want supers on. Prime time is not good as it is, I agree - I've liked the suggestions for spreading out primetime over longer periods as an alliance grows - either on a system by system basis or on a base member count for the whole alliance maybe upto 16 or even a full 24 hours - whilst still keeping it small and manageable for a small alliance to guard their handful of systems. I'm sure CCP can tie some lore into the command points as required. It's better to have good mechanics and then write a story around those then have crap mechanics because the original lore didn't fit imho.
Personally i think the whole prime time idea is ridiculous. The system should be vulnerable anytime of the day. It just gives more of an advantage to the defenders especially large alliances to out blob anyone who tries to do anything in their prime time. I hate this idea. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:58:18 -
[1776] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:i just read the whole thing again, and i have to say it sounds and looks very very complicated. I thought CCP was trying to get away from complicated. Looks like its been thought about a little too much and made way over complicated.
Also why do we never hear from CCP Seagull on anything?
Imo this is very good complexity. And seeing as I can sit down with my alliance and explain it in about 10-20 minutes means it's not any more complex than learning not to die in an interceptor. |
Ereilian
Mythic Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:59:11 -
[1777] - Quote
When CCP introduced Faction Warfare I joked with a few friends that give them enough rope and they would screw nullsec by making translating the plex spinning into real Sov.
:Drumrolls: Well looks like I was right. Rather than actually design a new system, they have just taken FW "Sov" and added a few bells and whistles to make it work in real Sov.
A good day to start training all frigate 5's. |
Serene Repose
2335
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:59:26 -
[1778] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: This seat isn't cheap, it costs $15 per month. You know how many starving children that could have fed? It's one-tenth what I pay for a Friday night....and you get it for a month. I knew you have a skewed sense of proportion.
Treason never prospers. What is the reason?
Why, if it prospers, none dare call it "treason."
|
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:04:16 -
[1779] - Quote
Ion Blacknight wrote:I had the same response as Rena: the Command Node thing is very gamey, it has no logic to support it. Give us something we can begin to believe in.
This discourages me from having a lot of assets and market inventory in null. I can only imagine what major industrialists and cap/supercap owners are feeling.
The range of the entosis link needs to be short to ensure fights. We don't want kitey uncatchable entosisers as well as cloaky afk campers do we?
im a touch your ihub :p |
Sodamn In-sane
Phorever People
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:04:27 -
[1780] - Quote
gotta say i love it , take down JB systems take out super building ability
go pain some old alliance that kicked you
this will be fun!!
Fozzie
job change is good but you're still a muppet
|
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:06:35 -
[1781] - Quote
At least we agree on "prime time". As for me, I'd just add strontium bays for every sov structure and call it a day. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:06:52 -
[1782] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:Well lets hope so... but they would need to do it en masse, rather one by one because what will happen is the coalition will lhotdrop kick them out and then put someone back in, and tell them to behave or else. You know the usual stuff, if you don't do as we tell you we will destroy you trick, which usually works for the weak. The threat is usually enough to keep people on side.
The point is, the threat is now completely empty and everyone knows it (or will learn it soon enough). The only threat that existed before was that the renter could not easily claim sov after you burned them out, because to claim sov they'd need to structure grind, and to structure grind they'd need a structure grind fleet, and a structure grind fleet is expensive AND fatally vulnerable to a supercap drop.
Now, they pull down any valuable assets, declare independence, and log off for a week while NC. tantrums. Then when NC.'s fleet leaves to do something more important, the renters login, take 10 minutes to flip the timers back, risking nothing but an AF or T1 cruiser fleet in the process, and then what? Sure, NC. might send a fleet to stop them, the first time. But then the other 49 renters realize that if NC.'s fleet is busy there, they can't be everywhere. Before, this wasn't worth the risk because if you were the unlucky renter picked as the object lesson that week, you just lost a capfleet. But now? They've welped a T1 cruiser fleet. They'd be insane NOT to risk contesting sov while you are busy, the cost will just be so low.
Rent works now because the potential cost of contesting sov, ANYWHERE, is higher than the cost of rent. You have to put significant cap assets on the line. Post E-links, the cost of contesting and defending sov in a system that no one else WANTS TO LIVE IN will drop from the cost of a capital fleet to practically free. It's only a matter of time before behavior catches up to these economics. Renters will still exist in lucrative systems that large groups are "effectively" living in via proxy-defense fleets, but the range and economics of where/when that is feasible is going to shrink quite a bit. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
187
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:10:09 -
[1783] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:Personally i think the whole prime time idea is ridiculous. The system should be vulnerable anytime of the day. It just gives more of an advantage to the defenders especially large alliances to out blob anyone who tries to do anything in their prime time. I hate this idea. Exactly why I think it should scale with the amount of sov held.
Maybe even start at 1 hour primetime if you only hold one system as a small bunch of friends that can all log on each day at the same time to defend it versus 24 hours for a huge multiTZ alliance holding several regions.
It definitely needs polishing by taking into account the numbers of players that each alliance has online at various times of the day versus how many systems/constellations/regions they hold sov in.
Without primetime the whole idea of being able to quickly flip unprotected sov falls flat on its face as you just do it at 4am for the defenders and give the attackers too much advantage in avoiding any kind of contest. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:10:15 -
[1784] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Logan Revelore wrote:I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.
And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely. Logan Revelore wrote:Another note.
This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.
Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo. I like this man. Cap escalation will still be a thing - if you end up pitting two subcap fleets against each other, eventually triage becomes a valid tactic which then means you might want dreads on grid which then means you might want supers on. Prime time is not good as it is, I agree - I've liked the suggestions for spreading out primetime over longer periods as an alliance grows - either on a system by system basis or on a base member count for the whole alliance maybe upto 16 or even a full 24 hours - whilst still keeping it small and manageable for a small alliance to guard their handful of systems. I'm sure CCP can tie some lore into the command points as required. It's better to have good mechanics and then write a story around those then have crap mechanics because the original lore didn't fit imho. Personally i think the whole prime time idea is ridiculous. The system should be vulnerable anytime of the day. It just gives more of an advantage to the defenders especially large alliances to out blob anyone who tries to do anything in their prime time. I hate this idea.
In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced." It also has absolutely nothing to do with blobbing. Large alliances are large alliances and have large numbers of people (duh) and therefore will have more people than smaller alliances at any given moment. No game mechanic other than one that breaks EVE will change this.
In agreement with your criticism: Invulnerable sov 20 hours a day is not ideal in my opinion. Currently I see 2 different ideas on how to alter this mechanic:
1. Sliding window based on alliance size. Larger alliances have larger windows where their structures are vulnerable and smaller ones have smaller windows to defend.
2. Sliding difficulty. The further away from primetime it gets, the harder it is to reinforce a structure. This difficulty could take the form of longer reinforce times (Sov Lazer has to cycle for longer) or any number of other ideas and mechanics.
The bottom line is that people, like you and I, want there to be smaller entities holding space. If we want that then we have to want some form of the primetime mechanic. Expecting a small group to be able to cover all timezones is simply not going to happen and they will lose their space. |
Jin Kugu
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:13:53 -
[1785] - Quote
Heh FW in null sec because FW is such a vibrant place.
I guess we'll have a few crazy months of fun destroying all the things before people realise orbiting buttons is even worse than shooting structures.
|
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
95
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:17:47 -
[1786] - Quote
If only CCP would invest the time it took to write this blog, never mind come up with all the sov changes, into updating missions they would get a lot more toons playing....... This is the newest gift to nullbears, among a long list of gifts over the years, to only get a, BWWWAAAAAA that is not what we wanted thread. |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1484
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:19:02 -
[1787] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:At least we agree on "prime time". As for me, I'd just add strontium bays for every sov structure and call it a day.
But then you have the counterpart to "weaponized boredom," which is forcing someone to log in and fleet up at 3am their time.
The system hopes to basically get rid of the current meta of war by attrition, of victory by being the last people to not log out for a week in frustration.
It's impossible to prevent that, of course. A sufficiently ruthless alliance can still drive a targeted alliance into high sec and then use wardecs to hound them out of the game. But CCP can at least try not to encourage it.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Ereilian
Mythic Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:19:21 -
[1788] - Quote
Personally, I do not see this as being a viable long term solution.
Yes the current Sov system has creaked and groaned for 6 years, but if all I need to do is plex 10 more than you ... how does this help a small 3-4oo man alliance vs the current superblobs?
Unused space is unused for a reason, it is bolloxs. The Anom nerf made most -0.5 space pointless to occupy [I will add a rider here, yes you can still mine]. If anything I am certain the superblobs would LOVE fresh meat to take these systems ... more Brave newbies to farm.
Ultimately this is a griefers system, small groups of disaffected or bitter-vet(tm) can mess around with sov in unused systems but when it comes down to it they will not have the stamina or numbers to plex their way to victory. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:20:40 -
[1789] - Quote
Dalilus wrote:If only CCP would invest the time it took to write this blog, never mind come up with all the sov changes, into updating missions they would get a lot more toons playing....... This is the newest gift to nullbears, among a long list of gifts over the years, to only get a, BWWWAAAAAA that is not what we wanted thread.
You're wrong.
BUT! Speaking of missions, I know this isn't what this change is targeted at but CCP, allowing alliances to "hire" mission agents to come live in SOV Null stations would be the literal ****. Can you imagine a better "carrot" for sov null? |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:22:23 -
[1790] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced." It doesnt work like this. Let me explain. Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B". Weaponized boredom, as thay called it.
|
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:22:25 -
[1791] - Quote
-Even I am not fan of the primetime idea as is, it really doesn't change a lot. That's what everyone does alraedy now. All that changes is, that the attacker cannot attack when they want, but when the defender wants.
-ppl worried of the "trollceptors" or any superfast ships attacking from 200+km. Wake up lads! All the defender needs to do, is that they undock 1 ship per structure to sov-laser their own structure. If a sov entity having 50+ structures cannot undock 50+ defenders on their primetime, they simply do not deserve those amounts of sov. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
188
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:25:38 -
[1792] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Zip Slings wrote:In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced." It doesnt work like this. Let me explain. Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B". Weaponized boredom, as thay called it. Dummy alliance gets promptly rolled because they need to have active members within the alliance to actually use the entosis links in defence. Big daddy alliance's links count as hostile for the purposes of capturing/RFing. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:27:47 -
[1793] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Prime time is not good as it is, I agree - I've liked the suggestions for spreading out primetime over longer periods as an alliance grows - either on a system by system basis or on a base member count for the whole alliance maybe upto 16 or even a full 24 hours - whilst still keeping it small and manageable for a small alliance to guard their handful of systems. The problem I saw with this about an hour after I initially suggested it is, this is also gameable by using stub alliances to hold the base sov so you keep the prime time low, which means that basically this mechanic can't be added. Either that or using stub alliances has to be banned, and I'm not sure CCP wants to spend time on that. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
359
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:28:44 -
[1794] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:Personally i think the whole prime time idea is ridiculous. The system should be vulnerable anytime of the day. It just gives more of an advantage to the defenders especially large alliances to out blob anyone who tries to do anything in their prime time. I hate this idea.
The prime time mechanic disproportionately favors small groups on defense, not large ones. TZ coverage is just another form of force projection, like jump distance. Fatigue nerfed force projection in space, prime time nerfs force projection in time. The ONLY people suffering from this change are large groups with complete TZ coverage now. They will no longer have the same scale of force projection that they are used to.
The prime time TZ mechanic only effectively comes into play when first trying to reinforce a structure with E-links. It simply prevents a larger group from reinforcing things belonging to small groups "at their leisure"; instead they can ONLY do it if they have local dominance in the prime time TZ of the smaller defending group, where they should be at their strongest. The TZ aspects of the contest after structures come out of reinforcement is basically unchanged from the current stront system (though the mechanics of control nodes ALSO tend to disproportionately favor small groups on defense for reasons not related to TZ).
TZ coverage is still an important part of control node contests, since they go on indefinitely until resolved. A close control node tug of war can be won simply by staying online longer than your opponent, so TZ coverage does not becomes totally irrelevant.
Any idea that small groups currently can use TZ's to their advantage against large groups is basically a strawman borne out by exactly 0 real world examples of this happening in practice.
In short, the TZ coverage thing is being blown way out of proportion. It doesn't actually change that much at all. The biggest impact, frankly, is in the ability for mutli-TZ alliances to coexist internally, and I think proposals in this thread about allowing alliances to set prime time by constellation or something along those lines would probably be reasonable ways to address that. |
Oceane Chevalier
Maple Moose The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:28:47 -
[1795] - Quote
Some aspects of it are actually interesting but without changes, this will not drive more fights.
A- You need to commit more than a frig, inty or destroyer. Make it so at least you need a cruiser. The bigger here the better. B- Adjust the duration to make it longer and the range shorter. Basically to ensure the attacker is committed and that defenders actually have a chance to setup a fleet and fight. That will force attackers to support their sov laser dude and so will congregate enemies in only 1-2 systems at a time improving the odds of an actual fight. "Real" sov Attackers will have nothing against this principle.
Ultimately however this system will force everyone to live in less systems since it does still favor attackers. That in itself is not bad but right now null is not able to support more people per system. Why wouldn't you address that aspect and then introduce sov changes? The same logic you used when you addressed force projection.
If big alliances could live in only a few systems, then making sov holding more of a challenge is a much smaller issue... |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3195
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:30:41 -
[1796] - Quote
where can i buy those interceptors with 250km lock range btw?
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
81
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:30:51 -
[1797] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Zip Slings wrote:In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced." It doesnt work like this. Let me explain. Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B". Weaponized boredom, as thay called it.
Then party "B" has their off-TZ guys (or mercenaries) come in and RF the whole region in a night because "A" is in bed. Then "B's" mercs' off TZ guys take the whole region uncontested because "A" were dumb enough to put their region in the hands of a dummy alliance with not enough people and not enough Sov lazers and in a ****** timezone for themselves. Counterplay.
AND CCP planned for this:
"When an alliance changes their prime time window, their new choice will not take effect until after 96 hours have passed. At the end of this 96 hour waiting period all the structures belonging to that alliance will be vulnerable twice in the same 24 hour period (one in the old window and once in the new one). The new setting will then take effect and become the new daily vulnerability window."
However, in defense of your scenario, I would hope that any SOV transfer would, and should, make the window unchangeable for a further amount of time in addition to the 96 hour primetime change. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:33:21 -
[1798] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:At least we agree on "prime time". As for me, I'd just add strontium bays for every sov structure and call it a day. But then you have the counterpart to "weaponized boredom," which is forcing someone to log in and fleet up at 3am their time. That's exactly what I'm talking about. With strontium, attacker at least has some influence on exit timer. You can either reinforce it unusually early and get a timer in 01am instead of 03am. Or you can kite the timer to get it in the evening instead of at downtime. Both of this tricks work in POS warfare, and work more or less tolerable. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1011
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:36:04 -
[1799] - Quote
Logan Revelore wrote:Another note.
This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.
Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo. Game Design is more important than lore. |
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
338
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:36:18 -
[1800] - Quote
The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.
The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.
Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.
The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
|
|
Ereilian
Mythic Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor
71
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:37:07 -
[1801] - Quote
Has anyone else noticed that the capture mechanics actually PROMOTE super alliances? Rather than have 2-3 alliances over a region it makes more sense to have a single alliance logistically. |
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising The Bastion
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:37:34 -
[1802] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote: In agreement with your criticism: Invulnerable sov 20 hours a day is not ideal in my opinion. Currently I see 2 different ideas on how to alter this mechanic:
1. Sliding window based on alliance size. Larger alliances have larger windows where their structures are vulnerable and smaller ones have smaller windows to defend.
2. Sliding difficulty. The further away from primetime it gets, the harder it is to reinforce a structure. This difficulty could take the form of longer reinforce times (Sov Lazer has to cycle for longer) or any number of other ideas and mechanics.
The bottom line is that people, like you and I, want there to be smaller entities holding space. If we want that then we have to want some form of the primetime mechanic. Expecting a small group to be able to cover all timezones is simply not going to happen and they will lose their space.
I like both of these ideas. The primetime thing is the only aspect of concern because there is a very large EU presence in my alliance so with only 4 hours I see it impossible to make everyone in the alliance happy for a prime time. Particularly because I am on Mountain time (-7) so by the time I'm getting home from work all the EU TZ guys are mostly getting ready for bed. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
431
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:38:31 -
[1803] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.
The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.
Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.
The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.
It happened. A Gevlon post that I actually agree with.
I think I've just won Eve. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1699
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:40:25 -
[1804] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.
The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.
Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.
The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.
It happened. A Gevlon post that I actually agree with. I think I've just won Eve.
It kinda bothers me. I think i had been just recently saying broken clock in reference to him.
Even the broken clock got this one right Fozzie. Shameful
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:40:33 -
[1805] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Zip Slings wrote:In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced." It doesnt work like this. Let me explain. Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B". Weaponized boredom, as thay called it. Then party "B" has their off-TZ guys (or mercenaries) come in and RF the whole region in a night because "A" is in bed. Then "B's" mercs' off TZ guys take the whole region uncontested because "A" were dumb enough to put their region in the hands of a dummy alliance with not enough people and not enough Sov lazers and in a ****** timezone for themselves. Counterplay. You do realize that sov-holding alliance usually have more ISK than ~little guy~ to hire mercs? Maybe even accept them to the dummy alliance to woop sov lazers. |
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising The Bastion
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:40:40 -
[1806] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:At least we agree on "prime time". As for me, I'd just add strontium bays for every sov structure and call it a day. But then you have the counterpart to "weaponized boredom," which is forcing someone to log in and fleet up at 3am their time. That's exactly what I'm talking about. With strontium, attacker at least has some influence on exit timer. You can either reinforce it unusually early and get a timer in 01am instead of 03am. Or you can kite the timer to get it in the evening instead of at downtime. Both of this tricks work in POS warfare, and work more or less tolerable.
totally disagree there is nothing I hate more than a) having to wake up at 4 am to shoot/defend something b) taking time off work to defend/shoot a critical 'thing' |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
81
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:41:25 -
[1807] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.
The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.
Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.
The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.
Killmails aren't trivial. The T1 mod costs 20M to make (means a markup and more expensive KM) and the T1 mod fitted ships are easily killed
The T2 costs 80M to make. I can't wait for some of those juicy killmails.
TLDR: Reports of interceptors winning EVE after this are wildly overrated. Don't fall victim to the ****** anti-hype. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6344
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:42:20 -
[1808] - Quote
Hey I just realized something.
What happens if there is a Sansha incursion in the constellation?
Would a Sansha incursion become a "window of opportunity"? Would it be that one PVe element that could tip a very tenaciously balanced scale? Would it be said that was not fair or would it be said "If one incursion was enough to make you lose SOV then you never really had it"?
Tune in next week for the next episode of our soap opera "As the Stomach Turns".
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
359
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:43:07 -
[1809] - Quote
Ereilian wrote:Unused space is unused for a reason, it is bolloxs. The Anom nerf made most -0.5 space pointless to occupy [I will add a rider here, yes you can still mine]. If anything I am certain the superblobs would LOVE fresh meat to take these systems ... more Brave newbies to farm.
The primary difference in this particular aspect of null is that people living in this space won't have to rent anymore. The cost of taking and holding sov in a system NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO LIVE IN will now be basically free. It only becomes expensive to defend sov if someone wants to actually evict you and LIVE THERE, not just if they are passing through burning everything in sight. Basically, WH life in null.
Right now, you cannot count on the crapness of unused space to make it cheap to own, because to take and hold sov you STILL need to put a capital fleet on the line. So instead you pay rent in order to lease a supercap fleet from a much larger group in the event it is ever needed.
Once the cost of taking and holding sov in undesirable space approaches free, the idea of paying someone else to lease a supercap fleet you no longer need becomes silly. Sure, roaming sov flipping gangs will be a thing, but these will be minor inconveniences on par with high-sec wardecs. Also, your supercap fleet lease won't actually help defend against this, so why would you pay it? It will cost you nothing to regain sov next week and get on with business as usual once they move on to other pastures. And in fact, it will provide some fun local subcap PvP for the duration, if you want it. Actual evictions to replace the residents of these systems will be rare.
As for not-crap nullsec, well... yeah. Small groups won't ever own this. Which is fine by everyone, I think. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
189
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:43:31 -
[1810] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Zip Slings wrote:In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced." It doesnt work like this. Let me explain. Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B". Weaponized boredom, as thay called it. Then party "B" has their off-TZ guys (or mercenaries) come in and RF the whole region in a night because "A" is in bed. Then "B's" mercs' off TZ guys take the whole region uncontested because "A" were dumb enough to put their region in the hands of a dummy alliance with not enough people and not enough Sov lazers and in a ****** timezone for themselves. Counterplay. You do realize that sov-holding alliance usually have more ISK than ~little guy~ to hire mercs? Maybe even accept them to the dummy alliance to woop sov lazers. So now the big alliances are renting small alliances to help them keep sov.
Priceless :) |
|
Torsnk
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:44:49 -
[1811] - Quote
Two parts to this post:
Part I (below) what I think -definitely- needs to be tweaked with the proposed system:
1. Like many people are saying: the one timezone four hour vulnerability period is bad. Possible solutions: Give the executor corp the ability to divide certain types of Sov Assets, Star Systems, Etc. into different 4-hour vulnerability periods (i.e. EUTZ will protect TCUs, USTZ will protect Stations, AUTZ will protect these three systems, etc.). OR Give the executor corp the ability to divide the 4-hour time block into smaller sections (no smaller than an hour) across the 24 hour time period.
2. The industry, sov, military indexes need some work: Perhaps consider adding jobs (manufacturing, research, invention, etc.) to the industry index instead of just purely mining?
3. Cruisers and larger should be the only ships that can fit Entosis Links. Otherwise the game will literally just be interceptors online.
4. Besides destroying POSGÇÖs what will dreadnoughts do in this new system? Seems like they will be pretty useless now.
5. I really -hate- the freeport concept. High/Low-sec station games are lame. DonGÇÖt bring it to null. What should happen instead? PLEASE let us destroy stations! (that would be awesome). When it happens all ships inside will be destroyed, clones will be destroyed (if it is someoneGÇÖs active clone and they are logged off when they log back in they should be in their medical cloneGÇÖs station, if their medical cloneGÇÖs station is destroyed they should spawn in their home system in high-sec). To harsh? Play another game. Because that would be awesome.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
81
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:45:00 -
[1812] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Zip Slings wrote:In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced." It doesnt work like this. Let me explain. Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B". Weaponized boredom, as thay called it. Then party "B" has their off-TZ guys (or mercenaries) come in and RF the whole region in a night because "A" is in bed. Then "B's" mercs' off TZ guys take the whole region uncontested because "A" were dumb enough to put their region in the hands of a dummy alliance with not enough people and not enough Sov lazers and in a ****** timezone for themselves. Counterplay. You do realize that sov-holding alliance usually have more ISK than ~little guy~ to hire mercs? Maybe even accept them to the dummy alliance to woop sov lazers.
Like I said, I see the issue and I hope CCP comes up with a simple solution to it. Don't just gloss over the 96 hour period that I quoted for you. |
Torsnk
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:45:35 -
[1813] - Quote
Part II of my post (What I would do with Sov if I were king):
I agree, fundamentally, with what a lot of people are asking (and thus implying): GÇ£What is the benefit to holding Sov?GÇ¥ A 25% reduction in POS fuel, slightly increased NPC spawns, and your name on a little map just isnGÇÖt cutting it.
In the real world, territorial sovereignty/land ownership is -recognized- by a neutral third party (the UN in our case, but could be CONCORD in Eve). Accompanying this recognition are many legal benefits. Here are a few examples (there are many more I can think of) that we could add to Eve sovereignty to make it a legitimate and worthwhile undertaking:
1. Legal penalties for unauthorized economic activity in someone elseGÇÖs sovereign space: If someone ventures, unauthorized, into your system(s) and mines minerals, shoots NPCs and takes loot, sets up a POS to harvest minerals, syphons moon minerals, etc. then takes those materials into CONCORD space (high-sec) those materials should be identified as contraband with negative ramifications (i.e. search and seizure, standing loss, criminal flag, CONCORD attack?, whatever the exact details could reflect the severity of the crime). Certain ships (like blockade runners) should be able to sneak things through without notice, or at least have a high probability of doing so. Who is authorized to use your sovereign space? ItGÇÖs up to the alliance to decide. It could be based on any combination of alliance name(s), corporation name(s), character name(s), standings, etc.
2. Tariffs: Sovereign space holders should be able to impose tariffs on assets/materials brought in from different sections of space. They should be able to select different rates based on item/material type and/or originating location. The exact mechanics of this would be up for debate (i.e. they need to pay a fee before jumping through to your system, wonGÇÖt be allowed to dock without paying, will be taxed heavier upon sale or transfer to another individual, etc.). This would open up a whole new dynamic to warfare in Eve. Sanctions anyone?
3. Localized currency: This would be somewhat difficult to actually institute, but there is a way. Bottom line, sovereign entities should be able to create their own currency and force/incentive individuals to use it. Potential examples: Want to sell something in our station? Great, you need to list the item with our currency (not isk), or you want to list the item for isk? Fine, but youGÇÖll need to pay station taxes in our currency, you want to set up a contract to transfer items? YouGÇÖll need to pay the broker fee in our currency. But how would individuals gain access to this currency? That would be up to the sov holder (specifically the guy in charge of finance/director/CEO) to define the exact means as to who, how, and how much individuals would get of their localized currency. The alliance could set up an official isk:local currency exchange. Specifically, there could be any combination of the following ideas (and more): someone pays the alliance X amount of isk at then they get Y amount of local currency, or the alliance prints the money at will and gives it to individuals/corps they want, or the alliance wishes to acquire particular types of ships/minerals/material and offers up a certain amount of their local currency in exchange. All in all, localized currency would add a whole new dynamic to Eve. For example, alliances could form trade pacts with other alliances who are willing to accept their local currency for payment. Alliances to could reduce, or completely eliminate transaction taxes on items sold in their stations if paid in local currency, or alliances could offer ships/items at significantly discounted prices (based on exchange rates) for items bought in their local currency, SRP could be paid in local currency, etc. Also, alliances could establish different types of monetary policy (i.e. there could be an alliance that ties the value of its currency to a particular asset, or there could be an illegitimate banana republic alliances that print their money at will and uses it to make promises they canGÇÖt keep). Another thing to consider, what happens when alliance collapses or when people lose confidence in its currency, but large swathes of people hold significant portions of their wallet in that allianceGÇÖs currency? Individuals should be able to sell their currency for isk or other items to anyone willing to buy, but of course the buyer gets to decide the exchange rate. A whole new level of scams, schemes, and shady business deals could arise.
Just some ideas to make Sov a -real thing- that actually has some significance. The ideas are limitless.
|
Kuda Timberline
Alea Iacta Est Universal Brave Collective
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:47:07 -
[1814] - Quote
Dirk Morbho wrote: What I see is a bunch of micromanagement and babysitting of sov structures. Sounds like an annoying load of crap where griefers get the upperhand.
Well, when you have 3M isk ships that can easily pop a 35M isk ship, I wouldn't exactly say CCP's special sauce is "balance".
Kuda Timberline
Co-host Capstable Podcast
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2826
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:48:13 -
[1815] - Quote
Torsnk wrote:Just some ideas to make Sov a -real thing- that actually has some significance. The ideas are limitless....
The UN doesn't collect revenue nor enforce laws, the sovereign entity does.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
245
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:48:22 -
[1816] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.
The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.
Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.
The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.
Gevlon, aren't you contractually obligated to never say things the rest of us agree with? |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
431
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:54:04 -
[1817] - Quote
Another gigantic flaw with this change.
Take one scenario - the super powers give up the majority of their space and open the door to nullsec space for random corporations.
At no point ever will a small corporation in nullsec be able to ever hold a valuable moon, and thus, the large entities still rule with the N+1 mechanics to defend their money moons.
The sov means nothing, especially when we could just crush the sov ~because~ while we were there picking up our moon minerals from a moon they'd never be able to take. Even if these residents sieged the moons 24/7, we'd sit on them so no one else could have them, increasing the value of our localized moons.
CCP again has no clue what they are doing with nullsec. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
190
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:55:26 -
[1818] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.
The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.
Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.
The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.
One thing you didn't think about: Entosis trolling against a prepared defence is the same amount of boredom as defending against it; therefore they won't troll a prepared defence unless their objective is to break morale.
Why bother orbitting the same defended point for 4 hours when there's more than likely going to be some undefended ones elsewhere in null?
Why don't you escalate the fight?
It's only boring for the defender if the attacker wants them to be bored (and is willing to take the same boredom themself). |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2826
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:56:13 -
[1819] - Quote
Ereilian wrote:Ultimately this is a griefers system, small groups of disaffected or bitter-vet(tm) can mess around with sov in unused systems but when it comes down to it they will not have the stamina or numbers to plex their way to victory. Griefing and kms are their own reward. Splitting forces puts pilot skills above F1 monkeys.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
693
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:58:36 -
[1820] - Quote
Any mechanic in EvE which includes some form of invulnerability has produced horribly broken outcome, just look at stuff that is been done with forcefields, docking games, cloaking to some extent etc. Some of these mechanics are integral to how EvE works (docking fe) but you can avoid having this happen with the new sov by simply not implementing it and doing something else with it. The concept of 4 hours of vulnerability is good but 20 hours of invulnerability should scream to the sky theyre gonna be abused.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
363
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:59:15 -
[1821] - Quote
Torsnk wrote:Part II of my post (What I would do with Sov if I were king):
I agree, fundamentally, with what a lot of people are asking (and thus implying): GÇ£What is the benefit to holding Sov?GÇ¥ A 25% reduction in POS fuel, slightly increased NPC spawns, and your name on a little map just isnGÇÖt cutting it.
Sov also means PI command centers, which is a non-trivial income stream for the small alliances that might actually want to live in crapsec null.
Also, it's silly to think CCP won't be addressing the other issues. Their dev blog says they want to address the other issues. They mentioned most of the "living in null" issues that remain to be fixed, including the big ones like being able to support player density. Their new iterative development model gives us hope that they will ACTUALLY follow through with these fixes finally. In short, we don't have to worry that much about whether anyone actually WANTS sov right now; assume things get to the point where people DO want sov, even in crapsec. Also, never underestimate the allure of putting your name on the map. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
230
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:02:00 -
[1822] - Quote
Can I ask of the Devs what happened to 'option #2'?
As I understood it, there were two general ideas going forwards for 'Sov', which had been mentioned in CSM notes somewhere, some months back (so I'm paraphrasing a little here):
Replace the Dominion era system with a new mechanic (which this appears to be), but still have 'Sov' structures e.t.c
Get rid of 'Sov' mechanics altogether, and pursue a 'free-form' model (the players 'write' the map)
So, given from an outsider perspective, #2 is technically simpler to implement (we had this with the very first alliances, before in-game alliance mechanics existed and before Starbases contributed to 'Sov'....), and in many ways, far more immersive, why didn't it make the cut? You even mention in the blog, the best multiplayer game systems involve simple mechanics...
So, I have to ask again, why do we even need 'Sov' at all?
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
684
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:03:14 -
[1823] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.
The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.
Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.
The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.
Gevlon, aren't you contractually obligated to never say things the rest of us agree with?
You have to be careful of over loading the cost, because some of this will require continuous pressure day after day so that you wear down the defender, the concept is guerilla conflict for systems that no one uses but will not want to give up due to pride. If you make it 500m as Gevlon said thats serious ISK to throw away on what may be a grindfest.
Some of these conflicts should last weeks even a month and they end because someone has used up all his ISK buying 20 of these modules at 500m a piece, seriously that would be 10,000,000,000 ISK, now just looking at Gevlons funding of Mordus Angels, its the same amount so for 20 attempts at a poor system I have to pay the same amount that Gevlon gives to Mordus Angles for one month, well seems rather over the top to me. The amounts detailed by CCP are about right, increasing the cost like this means you get your security by emptying the small entities wallets.
No wonder you like Gevlon for this proposal.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:03:57 -
[1824] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Can I ask of the Devs what happened to 'option #2'? As I understood it, there were two general ideas going forwards for 'Sov', which had been mentioned in CSM notes somewhere, some months back (so I'm paraphrasing a little here): Replace the Dominion era system with a new mechanic (which this appears to be), but still have 'Sov' structures e.t.c Get rid of 'Sov' mechanics altogether, and pursue a 'free-form' model (the players 'write' the map) So, given from an outsider perspective, #2 is technically simpler to implement (we had this with the very first alliances, before in-game alliance mechanics existed and before Starbases contributed to 'Sov'....), and in many ways, far more immersive, why didn't it make the cut? You even mention in the blog, the best multiplayer game systems involve simple mechanics... So, I also have to ask again, why do we even need 'Sov' at all?
Best thing imo is the second.
Make the Jove destroy each and every Null Sec systems, and let the player rebuild the null sec themselvs, with the +ö so promessed player buildable STARGATEs !
But well, i guess it'll never happen, or withing another "region".
HighSec LowSec NullSec WH Space 5th space with buildable stargates ! |
Torsnk
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:04:13 -
[1825] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Torsnk wrote:Just some ideas to make Sov a -real thing- that actually has some significance. The ideas are limitless....
The UN doesn't collect revenue nor enforce laws, the sovereign entity does.
True, but that's how I think it should work within the context of the game. |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:04:15 -
[1826] - Quote
The Entosis trolling will be insane if put into effect right now. Speed tanking will be the best defense with them, especially since any cap ships trying to use them will just get piled on since it takes so long for them. The Entosis needs an effect like siege and triage mods that force the ship to remain stationary, or at least a huge movement penalty.
Also, in many ways this makes Dreads only useful for POS grinding and anti-carrier ops. Carriers can at least triage and support with fighters, but Dreads, and in some ways Titans, are almost obsolete. I always saw dreads as the ultimate structure grinder, but if that doesn't happen anymore, what's the use of them? |
Proton Stars
OREfull
53
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:07:13 -
[1827] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:The Entosis trolling will be insane if put into effect right now. Speed tanking will be the best defense with them, especially since any cap ships trying to use them will just get piled on since it takes so long for them. The Entosis needs an effect like siege and triage mods that force the ship to remain stationary, or at least a huge movement penalty.
Also, in many ways this makes Dreads only useful for POS grinding and anti-carrier ops. Carriers can at least triage and support with fighters, but Dreads, and in some ways Titans, are almost obsolete. I always saw dreads as the ultimate structure grinder, but if that doesn't happen anymore, what's the use of them?
But carriers can't skynet anymore and with a huge increase in loss projection I doubt anyone would be dumb enough to use them unless in blob formation. Way to go ccp, now we have to blob capitals. |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:10:29 -
[1828] - Quote
Actually... can we get a clarification on whether the increase in Entosis cycle time on capitals increases the time it takes them to capture, or if it only increases the time it takes them to start capturing? |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
245
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:11:27 -
[1829] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:One thing you didn't think about: Entosis trolling against a prepared defence is the same amount of boredom as defending against it; therefore they won't troll a prepared defence unless their objective is to break morale.
Why bother orbitting the same defended point for 4 hours when there's more than likely going to be some undefended ones elsewhere in null?
Why don't you escalate the fight?
It's only boring for the defender if the attacker wants them to be bored (and is willing to take the same boredom themself).
Actually, I can directly answer this with experience from siegefleets: Not true.
See, running around in enemy space w/friends on mumble, everyone watching enemy movements and laughing as you drive the defenders nuts and they can't catch you? Not boring at all. We used to giggle ourselves stupid(er) during the Fountain War doing pretty much exactly this. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
431
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:12:08 -
[1830] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.
Love the tears here...great work CCP. Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough. Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space. why should you get to contest sov without even putting a t1 battlecruiser at risk? the issue isn't being unable to respond to an interceptor fleet, it's that an interceptor fleet has no risk whatsoever to its pilots if you're too much of a coward to even risk a single t1 battlecruiser you have no business in the big leagues
If you can't kill and interceptor you have no business logging on the server bud. |
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
363
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:12:29 -
[1831] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Get rid of 'Sov' mechanics altogether, and pursue a 'free-form' model (the players 'write' the map) So, I have to ask again, why do we even need 'Sov' at all?
It's a fair point, but all this would really do is get rid of TCU's. You'd still have to grind IHUBs and stations to have any meaningful sov conflict between large entities. Which brings us back to supercaps online.
In short, even if we get rid of the TCU and the very idea of sov, I'd STILL support E-links & constellation control nodes as a mechanic to remove structure grinding. There needs to be a way to compete over the "real" assets (IHUBs, stations, etc.), and leaving these unchanged as structure grinds puts us in the supercap stagnation we have today.
Basically, remember that supercaps are not a deterrent to sov warfare (e.g. large scale alliance conflict over in-space assets). They are a deterrent to structure grinding. Structure grinding itself is the deterrent to sov warfare. There's no way to fix the incentives to sov warfare that doesn't involve removing or changing the structure grinding mechanic itself. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
191
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:13:44 -
[1832] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:The Entosis trolling will be insane if put into effect right now. Speed tanking will be the best defense with them, especially since any cap ships trying to use them will just get piled on since it takes so long for them. The Entosis needs an effect like siege and triage mods that force the ship to remain stationary, or at least a huge movement penalty.
Also, in many ways this makes Dreads only useful for POS grinding and anti-carrier ops. Carriers can at least triage and support with fighters, but Dreads, and in some ways Titans, are almost obsolete. I always saw dreads as the ultimate structure grinder, but if that doesn't happen anymore, what's the use of them? Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.
These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at
5/120x2xPi = 0.006 rad/s |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
245
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:14:39 -
[1833] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:No wonder you like Gevlon for this proposal.
Oh, no no, I don't agree w/Gevlon regarding the cost of these things. Really, the cost of these things is immaterial. I agree with his analysis of '4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result'.
Mostly, I'm just shocked about agreeing with Gevlon at all. The guy routinely bans me from his blog because I take too much glee in demolishing his nonsense. |
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:18:39 -
[1834] - Quote
People want fights, not boring chases of hard to catch, low value ships. Think of how annoying warp stabbed farmers are in FW.
Why is the Entosis thing not a deployable structure? Rather than fitting it on a ship, why not make it like one of the new deployables? Cost it around 50/100m, and have the attackers defend it until it has produced a timer on the TCU/Ihub/Station. Once it has, it can be scooped and re-used, but it could give the defenders something concrete to attack.
Avoidance is already way too dominant a strategy in this game, don't make it even more powerful. Right now all the costs are put on the defender. Make the attacker ante up, and actually have to commit rather than just abusing fast things.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:20:00 -
[1835] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Can I ask of the Devs what happened to 'option #2'? As I understood it, there were two general ideas going forwards for 'Sov', which had been mentioned in CSM notes somewhere, some months back (so I'm paraphrasing a little here): Replace the Dominion era system with a new mechanic (which this appears to be), but still have 'Sov' structures e.t.c Get rid of 'Sov' mechanics altogether, and pursue a 'free-form' model (the players 'write' the map) So, given from an outsider perspective, #2 is technically simpler to implement (we had this with the very first alliances, before in-game alliance mechanics existed and before Starbases contributed to 'Sov'....), and in many ways, far more immersive, why didn't it make the cut? You even mention in the blog, the best multiplayer game systems involve simple mechanics... So, I also have to ask again, why do we even need 'Sov' at all? Oddly, as the TCU, IHUB and station are now all separate, you do not need to claim Sol to hold a system. Keep everyone else out with ships, just like if there was no Sov. Many have asked "Why claim Sov?" If you don't think there is a valid reason, then don't do it! Just occupy the system.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:24:04 -
[1836] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:People want fights, not boring chases of hard to catch, low value ships. Think of how annoying warp stabbed farmers are in FW.
Why is the Entosis thing not a deployable structure? Rather than fitting it on a ship, why not make it like one of the new deployables? Cost it around 50/100m, and have the attackers defend it until it has produced a timer on the TCU/Ihub/Station. Once it has, it can be scooped and re-used, but it could give the defenders something concrete to attack.
Avoidance is already way too dominant a strategy in this game, don't make it even more powerful. Right now all the costs are put on the defender. Make the attacker ante up, and actually have to commit rather than just abusing fast things.
The attacker forces the defender to actually undock and come on grid to defend...then the attacker gets to choose whether to engage or move on.
If the attacker wants to fight it's a guaranteed fight or an RF timer for the defender if they shirk their responsibilities. |
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
491
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:24:20 -
[1837] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.
These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at
5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s
edit: doh my maths, fixed
As I stated earlier in this thread, time to dust that sniper Rokh. |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:30:00 -
[1838] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Devi Loches wrote:The Entosis trolling will be insane if put into effect right now. Speed tanking will be the best defense with them, especially since any cap ships trying to use them will just get piled on since it takes so long for them. The Entosis needs an effect like siege and triage mods that force the ship to remain stationary, or at least a huge movement penalty.
Also, in many ways this makes Dreads only useful for POS grinding and anti-carrier ops. Carriers can at least triage and support with fighters, but Dreads, and in some ways Titans, are almost obsolete. I always saw dreads as the ultimate structure grinder, but if that doesn't happen anymore, what's the use of them? Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin. These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at 5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s edit: doh my maths, fixed
So you propose sniping them? You'll need much larger ships in order to snipe at frigates orbiting 120km away from you. That is exactly what trolls are looking for, a single BS trying to snipe them down so they can bring something else in and get a good kill. The issue isn't that it's impossible to hit the trollceptors, it's that they either leave grid too fast if you get close, or are just a pain if you don't.
By freezing them in place, it's just as much about keeping them in the same grid as it is about keeping them from speed tanking. That and the fact that a handful of frigates can create the havoc that a fleet of cruisers used to do, while still requiring the same level of defense commitment, is just unreasonable.
I'm not in a large bloc that is looking to protect whole regions of space and complaining it's going to be harder. I'm coming from a small alliance that just got sov and sees this as ridiculous to defend against. |
Gorgof Intake
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
53
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:30:55 -
[1839] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:One thing you didn't think about: Entosis trolling against a prepared defence is the same amount of boredom as defending against it; therefore they won't troll a prepared defence unless their objective is to break morale.
Why bother orbitting the same defended point for 4 hours when there's more than likely going to be some undefended ones elsewhere in null?
Why don't you escalate the fight?
It's only boring for the defender if the attacker wants them to be bored (and is willing to take the same boredom themself). Actually, I can directly answer this with experience from siegefleets: Not true. See, running around in enemy space w/friends on mumble, everyone watching enemy movements and laughing as you drive the defenders nuts and they can't catch you? Not boring at all. We used to giggle ourselves stupid(er) during the Fountain War doing pretty much exactly this.
CFC has always overstated the effectiveness of Siege Fleets and the result on enemy (ie my bro's) morale. Ive never met anyone who was frustrated at siege fleet. We just thought it was lame.
Do you know what is annoying though? Having proposed a much better (yet similar) sov mechanic that would solve/ abate so much of this splurgethread and having not a single person in CCP acknowledge its existence :(
Some Thoughts on Sov Mechanics
DEADPACKS: Alternative Sov Mechanic
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:30:56 -
[1840] - Quote
Baneken wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.
These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at
5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s
edit: doh my maths, fixed
As I stated earlier in this thread, time to dust that sniper Rokh. A interceptor can keep a lock at 120 km?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:33:36 -
[1841] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:People want fights, not boring chases of hard to catch, low value ships. Think of how annoying warp stabbed farmers are in FW.
Why is the Entosis thing not a deployable structure? Rather than fitting it on a ship, why not make it like one of the new deployables? Cost it around 50/100m, and have the attackers defend it until it has produced a timer on the TCU/Ihub/Station. Once it has, it can be scooped and re-used, but it could give the defenders something concrete to attack.
Avoidance is already way too dominant a strategy in this game, don't make it even more powerful. Right now all the costs are put on the defender. Make the attacker ante up, and actually have to commit rather than just abusing fast things.
The attacker forces the defender to actually undock and come on grid to defend...then the attacker gets to choose whether to engage or move on. If the attacker wants to fight it's a guaranteed fight or an RF timer for the defender if they shirk their responsibilities.
But this again makes avoidance the dominant, boring strategy. People in this system undock and use an Entosis to counter mine? Okay I move along, switch structures, or go log off in a safe and then come back and start again. Avoidance and annoyance seem far too effective with no cost.
There is a slight opportunity cost of danger, but there needs to be a non zero cost for just trying to flip every thing that can be.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:34:50 -
[1842] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Baneken wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.
These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at
5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s
edit: doh my maths, fixed
As I stated earlier in this thread, time to dust that sniper Rokh. A interceptor can keep a lock at 120 km?
With the right fit, yes. Some fits have already been shown using sensor boosters. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
248
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:38:56 -
[1843] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Oddly, as the TCU, IHUB and station are now all separate, you do not need to claim Sol to hold a system. Keep everyone else out with ships, just like if there was no Sov. Many have asked "Why claim Sov?" If you don't think there is a valid reason, then don't do it! Just occupy the system.
Actually, the reason to hold sov in the systems you live in is pretty simple: the sov index helps make it take longer for enemies to RF your ihub and station. Is it a great reason? No, but it is a reason. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:40:03 -
[1844] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:People want fights, not boring chases of hard to catch, low value ships. Think of how annoying warp stabbed farmers are in FW.
Why is the Entosis thing not a deployable structure? Rather than fitting it on a ship, why not make it like one of the new deployables? Cost it around 50/100m, and have the attackers defend it until it has produced a timer on the TCU/Ihub/Station. Once it has, it can be scooped and re-used, but it could give the defenders something concrete to attack.
Avoidance is already way too dominant a strategy in this game, don't make it even more powerful. Right now all the costs are put on the defender. Make the attacker ante up, and actually have to commit rather than just abusing fast things.
The attacker forces the defender to actually undock and come on grid to defend...then the attacker gets to choose whether to engage or move on. If the attacker wants to fight it's a guaranteed fight or an RF timer for the defender if they shirk their responsibilities. But this again makes avoidance the dominant, boring strategy. People in this system undock and use an Entosis to counter mine? Okay I move along, switch structures, or go log off in a safe and then come back and start again. Avoidance and annoyance seem far too effective with no cost. There is a slight opportunity cost of danger, but there needs to be a non zero cost for just trying to flip every thing that can be. The cost is the manhours spent 'trolling' in these ceptors. If people are doing it purely for the 'troll' factor of making people undock then tittering like schoolgirls over to the next system then it sounds about as fun as cancer, I certainly wouldn't be signing up to waste my time in a fleet that does that.
But using them to start fights or RF systems to have fights in at a later date definitely has more appeal. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:40:03 -
[1845] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Baneken wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.
These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at
5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s
edit: doh my maths, fixed
As I stated earlier in this thread, time to dust that sniper Rokh. A interceptor can keep a lock at 120 km?
a malediction with 2 sensor boosters (range script), two T2 ionic rigs, being RSBed by another malediction (range script) can lock out to 200km
the pair go 4.5km/s mwding while cap stable and are <2s align (3x istab, overdrive)
this is before implants or gang bonuses |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6550
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:41:35 -
[1846] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:People want fights, not boring chases of hard to catch, low value ships. Think of how annoying warp stabbed farmers are in FW.
Why is the Entosis thing not a deployable structure? Rather than fitting it on a ship, why not make it like one of the new deployables? Cost it around 50/100m, and have the attackers defend it until it has produced a timer on the TCU/Ihub/Station. Once it has, it can be scooped and re-used, but it could give the defenders something concrete to attack.
Avoidance is already way too dominant a strategy in this game, don't make it even more powerful. Right now all the costs are put on the defender. Make the attacker ante up, and actually have to commit rather than just abusing fast things.
The attacker forces the defender to actually undock and come on grid to defend...then the attacker gets to choose whether to engage or move on. If the attacker wants to fight it's a guaranteed fight or an RF timer for the defender if they shirk their responsibilities. But this again makes avoidance the dominant, boring strategy. People in this system undock and use an Entosis to counter mine? Okay I move along, switch structures, or go log off in a safe and then come back and start again. Avoidance and annoyance seem far too effective with no cost. There is a slight opportunity cost of danger, but there needs to be a non zero cost for just trying to flip every thing that can be. The cost is the manhours spent 'trolling' in these ceptors. If people are doing it purely for the 'troll' factor of making people undock then tittering like schoolgirls over to the next system then it sounds about as fun as cancer, I certainly wouldn't be signing up to waste my time in a fleet that does that. But using them to start fights or RF systems to have fights in at a later date definitely has more appeal. You don't have to.
Eventually they will just not appear, so you take the sov without a fight, just a bunch of interceptors and a can-do attitude.
(Numbers helps with both of these)
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:41:39 -
[1847] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:[quote=Baneken]A interceptor can keep a lock at 120 km? a malediction with 2 sensor boosters (range script), two T2 ionic rigs, being RSBed by another malediction (range script) can lock out to 200km the pair go 4.5km/s mwding while cap stable and are <2s align (3x istab, overdrive) this is before implants or gang bonuses You can't be RSB'd whilst using an Entosis link.
edit: You also just dropped your angular velocity to 0.01 rad/s |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:43:38 -
[1848] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Baneken wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.
These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at
5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s
edit: doh my maths, fixed
As I stated earlier in this thread, time to dust that sniper Rokh. A interceptor can keep a lock at 120 km? a malediction with 2 sensor boosters (range script), two T2 ionic rigs, being RSBed by another malediction (range script) can lock out to 200km the pair go 4.5km/s mwding while cap stable and are <2s align (3x istab, overdrive) this is before implants or gang bonuses OK. Shows what I know about fitting. But remember, you cannot warp with a running Etonsis link. You have to wait for it to end its cycle. That makes the 2 second align a little less useful.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
248
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:44:15 -
[1849] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:CFC has always overstated the effectiveness of Siege Fleets and the result on enemy (ie my bro's) morale. Ive never met anyone who was frustrated at siege fleet. We just thought it was lame.
Do you know what is annoying though? Having proposed a much better (yet similar) sov mechanic that would solve/ abate so much of this splurgethread and having not a single person in CCP acknowledge its existence :(
Well, since I've never been on the receiving end of siegefleet, I'll take your word for it. And yeah, that'd be annoying to pretty much anyone. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:45:22 -
[1850] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Baneken wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.
These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at
5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s
edit: doh my maths, fixed
As I stated earlier in this thread, time to dust that sniper Rokh. A interceptor can keep a lock at 120 km? a malediction with 2 sensor boosters (range script), two T2 ionic rigs, being RSBed by another malediction (range script) can lock out to 200km the pair go 4.5km/s mwding while cap stable and are <2s align (3x istab, overdrive) this is before implants or gang bonuses OK. Shows what I know about fitting. But remember, you cannot warp with a running Etonsis link. You have to wait for it to end its cycle. That makes the 2 second align a little less useful. that's fine, just burn off grid |
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
248
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:45:53 -
[1851] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:OK. Shows what I know about fitting. But remember, you cannot warp with a running Etonsis link. You have to wait for it to end its cycle. That makes the 2 second align a little less useful.
I'd imagine the sub 2-second align is to get through camps, really.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:46:41 -
[1852] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Eli Apol wrote:The cost is the manhours spent 'trolling' in these ceptors. If people are doing it purely for the 'troll' factor of making people undock then tittering like schoolgirls over to the next system then it sounds about as fun as cancer, I certainly wouldn't be signing up to waste my time in a fleet that does that.
But using them to start fights or RF systems to have fights in at a later date definitely has more appeal. You don't have to. Eventually they will just not appear, so you take the sov without a fight, just a bunch of interceptors and a can-do attitude. (Numbers helps with both of these) Sounds like absolutely valid tactics for a sov hearts and minds war :) |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:47:59 -
[1853] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:OK. Shows what I know about fitting. But remember, you cannot warp with a running Etonsis link. You have to wait for it to end its cycle. That makes the 2 second align a little less useful. I'd imagine the sub 2-second align is to get through camps, really. exactly
i guess you could refit to something more interesting once you got to the system but that seems like a lot of effort to me |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2829
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:49:28 -
[1854] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote: You don't have to.
Eventually they will just not appear, so you take the sov without a fight, just a bunch of interceptors and a can-do attitude.
(Numbers helps with both of these)
Whaaa!!!??? You mean people will give up space they don't want to defend? GET OUT OF HERE.
Offense gets alot harder the closer you are to somebody's home. Defense is much easier when you don't have to defend many systems.
The troll-ceptors will be able to clean up the unpopulated areas, which will flip back and forth quite often.
The big fleets will knock out the home constellations.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
El'Grimm
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:49:42 -
[1855] - Quote
Phase 3, well it better come with free BJ's if it intends to counter the fact that holding sov basically means come farm/annoy/grief sov holders, as its my job now.
With the ease of harassment, and the danger of loosing your sov for lols to any of the major super blocs who can and will tear everything down for fun, it means no-one is gonna look long term for sov investment. This will spiral downwards and become easier as non bloc entities loose everything, and new holders simply wont be able to afford to upgrade or even see the point at all.
No industrialist in there right mind is going to want to set up in nullsov with these changes. BPO's kept in null, nope, these changes are gonna finally bring some life to lowsec :)
It's been pointed out that this is FW 2.0, yeah and you know what it's like in FW space, tons of griefers who fight for no side looking for a skirmish, no in depth game play, just cheap pointless pvp, ie what you can get in every other bloody game. If FW is anything to compare this too, and it should be, then most of null will become inhabited by people who don't care for sov at all.
We all know what EVE is like, if someone can troll they will, relentlessly. If these changes even remotely promoted use by people who actually want to gain sov, they would be fantastic, in reality all this will do is make holding sov be the content generators that trolls always wanted. I am not putting all my efforts into holding sov, so that every attacker on a whim can have fun and everything I have to do in return, both costs me more time and money than any attacker will ever have to fork out. The risk reward factor in attacking someones sov, compared to holding sov is gonna be laughable.
And small alliances, oh I'm sure ccp will love the km's that will be produced over this to put on a graph and say see it worked, but the isk needed to take sov is going to vastly outweigh that which is needed to make another loose sov, ie there is zero balance in this equation.
Anyone else see the obvious correlation that these ideas primarily stem from someone who is known for small skirmishes, and zero inclination to the game-play that is wanted from the thousands that are in blocs?
And finally... where exactly are all these FC's to command these split forces going to come from? They simply dont exist, FC burnout is more common than ceo/leadership burnout, and this system for sov holders is going to be a 4 hours a day non stop shitfest for the FC's.
My honest prediction, if this rolls out in June, game will break on the 4th July holiday weekend, because god forbid anyone takes a few days holiday in this new scheme, specially not a holiday based around one TZ.
nb. I am from provi, one of the most populated industrialized player owned regions of space in eve, these changes should make me happy. Everything about these changes looks like it should be aimed at how our little corner of null works, ie were not sprawled out over multiple regions, were highly concentrated in terms of players per system, and we have a high degree of industry and activity. I should be happy, but I see this seriously affecting the game for the detriment of thousands of player not just me and my allies.
tl/dr Just compare the risk/reward/time of these two. Holding sov, vs attacking someones sov. Its not comparable, and thus this new system is broken beyond belief. |
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:49:45 -
[1856] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:. If people are doing it purely for the 'troll' factor of making people undock then tittering like schoolgirls over to the next system then it sounds about as fun as cancer, I certainly wouldn't be signing up to waste my time in a fleet that does that.
That's the problem. Harassment as it looks now appears to be the best strategy. Breaking their armies is impossible, so break their wills. While, yes, that's one way to win a war, we are looking for fun gameplay here. Put some onus on the attacker.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:52:37 -
[1857] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Baneken wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.
These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at
5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s
edit: doh my maths, fixed
As I stated earlier in this thread, time to dust that sniper Rokh. A interceptor can keep a lock at 120 km? a malediction with 2 sensor boosters (range script), two T2 ionic rigs, being RSBed by another malediction (range script) can lock out to 200km the pair go 4.5km/s mwding while cap stable and are <2s align (3x istab, overdrive) this is before implants or gang bonuses OK. Shows what I know about fitting. But remember, you cannot warp with a running Etonsis link. You have to wait for it to end its cycle. That makes the 2 second align a little less useful. Also there is this: "Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes." I'm not sure if that extends to RSBs. Now all the defender need to is bring a faster ship and run you down.
Basically, that means just changing the meta from Ishtars and Tengus to Interceptor races. |
BlitZ Kotare
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
129
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:55:28 -
[1858] - Quote
To preface, I haven't read the rest of this threadnaught. You ccp employees that actually have the job of wading through this pile of blahhh have my sympathy.
Comments about the new system:
- Forces more diffuse conflicts, it won't be possible for you to park your 30,000 member coalition in one system and just afk empire things from there effectively. I like that.
- The Attacker in New System risks very, very little. In Dominion sov the attacker must at least "risk" his SBU's and give the attacker ample time to respond to his attack attempt. This attempt can be made during any part of the day, encouraging alliances and coalitions to have good timezone coverage. The Attacker in New System can easily "spam" sov attacks using cheap, interdiction immune ships (interceptors) that are basically invulnerable en route to their attack point and it's incredibly likely some of his attacks will succeed, again at very little risk. (Please, please remove interdiction nullification. It's a dumb mechanic that reduced conflict for no actual gameplay gain).
- TZ locking in New System for all structures isn't good. Make it selectable for every structure independently, and it takes effect immediately (or on the next reinforcement timer). The downside to this is that you have to fly around physically to each structure to set it (just like now) so your time-to-live isn't some artificial 96 hour thing, it's based on player effort.
- Important sov structures in New System should have more than one reinforcement timer. Perhaps the # of timers should be dependent on the indexes, so instead of the defender getting a duration bonus to their defense, they should instead get a second defense attempt?
- The Industry index has been broken forever. It's nearly impossible to get to V and keep it there, and it's super easy to afk camp it back down. The Industry index should include things like items manufactured in station and POS, moon mining, # of market transactions taking place, etc.
- Attackers and Defenders in New System should be able do to something in the Defenders space during the RF cycle to influence the outcome of the final fight. Having the indexes fix at the time of RF isn't a good idea, it encourages everyone to dock up and do nothing until the timer. Active mechanics > passive ones.
- The disparity in New System between the Attackers capture bonus and the Defenders max capture bonus is too high in terms of capture time.
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:56:09 -
[1859] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Eli Apol wrote:. If people are doing it purely for the 'troll' factor of making people undock then tittering like schoolgirls over to the next system then it sounds about as fun as cancer, I certainly wouldn't be signing up to waste my time in a fleet that does that. That's the problem. Harassment as it looks now appears to be the best strategy. Breaking their armies is impossible, so break their wills. While, yes, that's one way to win a war, we are looking for fun gameplay here. Put some onus on the attacker.
It'll be harassment till either you take sov, or defenders bring something out worth dropping a blackops on. Long live the hotdrop meta. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
363
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:57:16 -
[1860] - 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)
You seem to identify "organized fleet space" with "4000 pilot tidi fleets". Bottom line is the tech can't handle that and never will. They said as much in their blog. We can wish it would, but it can't, so we need something different.
What they are trying to do with this is maintain the idea of "organized fleet space" by giving massive advantages to anyone who can coordinate and control multiple large, simultaneous fleets across constellations in a fairly narrow time window. The very essence of this mechanic is to promote multi-pronged, highly coordinated attack and defense with multi-composition fleets. The alliance that can field multiple 250-man fleets in tight coordination across several attacks, with defense on standby, in a 4 hour period is going to win. The alliance that can plan and coordinate the softening of target system indices with black ops and skirmish harassment days and weeks before invading a region will win. The alliance that can maintain the industry and logistics to keep subcap fleets supplied on ALL front lines, or the caps/bridge network in place to move subcaps where they need to go, will win. This all feels like "organized fleet space" to me.
Harassment ops might be small gang, but any serious attempt to E-link a structure or win a control node contest and actually establish new sov against a prepared opposing alliance are going to be fleet battles with hundreds if not thousands of participating pilots. This is not small gang warfare.
The funny thing is that while that is not the NORM in FW, when this level of coordination DOES happen it is extremely effective and steamrolls the opposing militia until total warzone control is established. There's no reason to think this won't be the norm in nullsec where alliances have a lot more incentive and existing structure available to make this happen regularly, rather than the ragtag state of FW where it only happens once in a while.
Somewhere in this thread was probably the most succinct summary of how this change will affect null alliances: "We're gonna need a lot more FC's". Wish I could find it again :) |
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:57:31 -
[1861] - Quote
BlitZ Kotare wrote:- Attackers and Defenders in New System should be able do to something in the Defenders space during the RF cycle to influence the outcome of the final fight. Having the indexes fix at the time of RF isn't a good idea, it encourages everyone to dock up and do nothing until the timer. Active mechanics > passive ones. Disrupt their PvE in the days/weeks/months building upto the attack in order to lower their indices before RFing the system perhaps?
I hear afk cloakies do wonders for this. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:58:57 -
[1862] - Quote
On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:00:10 -
[1863] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough. Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:01:59 -
[1864] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough. Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already. the only thing that hits an interceptor at 100km+ is praying for a wrecking shot |
Johnny Galnetty
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:03:42 -
[1865] - Quote
I like the proposed changes the only concern I really have is this 'prime time window' which the attackers cannot influence at all in its current form.
Fear not have a suggestion to the problem. Base the size of the primetime window on the indices of the constellation on a sliding scale the higher the sov owners have all the systems in the constellation to 5 the smaller the prime time window is, meaning the more active they are in the constellation the harder it is to take straight off, the lower the indices the wider the attack window becomes.
This gives 2 benefits to the system you propose. 1 the less used a constellation the easier for an attacker to take which means that space changes hands easier (which seems to be something you are aiming for). 2 in more populated constellations the attackers can and should actively harass the defender to bring the indices down and thus widerening the window of attack, this could be used as a conflict driver and force passive space owners a real reason to form defence fleets to force these groups off and make there systems harder to attack.
Obviously this does rear the afk cloaker problem but it does give the attacker more influence on when attacks can be started and the defenders even more reason to be active in their systems
It also reduces the changes of sov warfare being compressed in to either us or rus primetimes for max defensive numbers or for them being set into the lower population times zone (thinking AUS TZ) for fight denial.
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:04:17 -
[1866] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.
Fit an interceptor same as before but with an oversized AB. The issue is that something that can move super fast shouldn't also be able to use the ranged version of the E-Link. If they can only use the T1 version and stay close, that's fine, it forces the same conflict and isn't just trolling. Larger ships that can't just zoom away are the ships that need the range for the E-Link. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
363
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:04:41 -
[1867] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:That's the problem. Harassment as it looks now appears to be the best strategy. Breaking their armies is impossible, so break their wills. While, yes, that's one way to win a war, we are looking for fun gameplay here. Put some onus on the attacker.
Sov harassment is just the gateway drug to break up the blue stalemate. Once sov harassment is a part of daily life with your neighbors, it'll be that much easier to escalate into real sov fleet battles from time to time.
The primary difference in this mechanic vs. the current state of affairs is that line members can't participate in any meaningful sov harassment at the moment. Only cap pilots have that privilege, and they break rank and do so against alliance orders rarely, and even then it's pretty easy to smooth over diplomatically since without the backing of your alliance super fleet it's a meaningless incursion. But once your line members can form up any old 20 man fleet and go flip a little-used border system, good luck 1) stopping them from doing so and 2) keeping all those blue diplomatic ties happy in the aftermath of daily "incidents". |
Mecca
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:05:26 -
[1868] - Quote
Honestly, you read the first part of this and how important it is to make the sov system understandable thinking; fine thats a very good start.
Then follows a book of text on how this stuff will work, and it-¦s not hard to understand the mechanic. But the meaning of it all just gets lost with all the complicated mechanics added just to make it work. Only vulnerable for certain timers, some module you have to activate on a structure to make it not love its current owner, stations made open to everyone for a certain time once you shoot it enough?
While the mechanic makes the game playable it-¦s completely not logical.
If you want to invade someone normally you do some of the below and this should be central for all wars. a. Go to where they live and kill as many as possible until they flee in fear. b. Go to where they have their strategic assets and lock/shoot it down making opposition very hard. c. Destroy them from the inside making them fight each other, kill/recruit their leaders and so on. d. Occupy them, patrolling their homes, show who-¦s in charge and hopefully they will surrender. Plus probably a few more, but it-¦s simple and understandable.
Defender should of course always have the benefit of home turf and being able to fortify and choose which battles to fight. But the whole idea of having a sandbox where people matter is less rules and game mechanics, not more stuff that players have to do in order to justify the mechanics. Also already trollceptor online...
What about the maintance of space structures? Stations gotta have millions of ppl inside them to handle daily maintance. Why not have faction or corp NPC-¦s in null which you hire to do your sov maintance, kill the standings cap and give the PVE +¬rs an impact on sov to grind standing for their alliances to make better deals with the faction to increase military/industry status. Also agents in null will bring more players to null = more content. CCP please dont fear, high sec mission runners will not unsub after being killed in null, they will just either take the challange or move back to high sec trying to do their stuff while suffer the broken HS gank mechanic. If you want to attack sov you make a deal with the faction to weaken the defence for certain timer and launch your attack.
NPC-¦s can limit the amount of maintance any alliance can use and so limiting the blocks owning hundreds of systems.
Dunno, just writing as Im thinking but the fighting and conquer of sov needs to be somewhat related to how it actually works to be any fun in my mind.
Upside is Wormholes are going to see a massive increase in numbers by summer. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2111
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:07:38 -
[1869] - Quote
maybe an MMJD RLML drake would become the new counter? |
Severn VonKarr
Manoop Material Acquisitions Cartel UMBRELLA C0RP0RATI0N
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:08:37 -
[1870] - Quote
I like the proposal of a control point style gamplay in place of structure grinding. This is one of the more interesting game types in other games as it creates an objective rather than just mindless carnage. There are still a few problems though:
Player expectations - among the goals players have for a sov revamp are: * removal of structure grinding focused gameplay. * make it more difficult to hold onto unused territory. * reduce the need for blobbing. * provide a way of building up for players to entrench/capitalize and get more use out of territory so as to reduce the need to expand.
This proposal only accomplishes half of these, so many players are still going to be unenthused about sov. A very narrow time window that can be focused around an alliance's prime time coupled with a mechanic that doesn't necessitate large numbers to defend may just make defense easier. Perhaps this could be tweaked so the vulnerability window grows with increased sovereignty claims.
The expectation of providing a means to build up could be satiated by reworking i-hubs. Tie upgrades and indices to specific player activities and make upgrades for different activities increase the effective number players that can be sustained by the system. This could be balanced by reducing the base available resources for non-upgraded systems and the upgrades themselves would only be available in focal points of these activities for alliances (like industrial/pve capital systems). Also the level of upgrade online/available would be directly determined by the level of player activity. This would prevent players from milking the system.
Aside from player expectations, the proposed system still has it's own potential headaches: *Solo/gang entosis raiders flipping sov in cheap risk averse kiting ships. *third parties bogarting on every capture for quick conquests. *Reinforcement timers that are unnecessary on some things and too short on others. (TCUs vs. Stations) *occupancy bonus is defender only. *Offensively imbalanced sovereignty competition.
Others on the forum have already explained the headaches of cheap risk averse ship fits (kiting frigs+desys raiding everywhere constantly. So I won't touch this.
Currently EVERY attackers link counts together, while defenders only have their own count. This allows third parties to show up to any event having not done any of the initial work and still being able to claim structures at will. Each attacking alliance should have independent capture/reinforcement progress.
TCUs have such marginal advantages that having them flip overnight should not be a significant headache for anyone. They should not have a reinforcement timer. Stations and infrastructure however are more meaningful. Stations can have years of assets that should probably take more than a couple days of interaction to flip. They should still be quick to flip if other structures are already claimed. So perhaps TCUs should have no timers. I-hubs and Stations should have a week timer if all other structures are still owned, 4 days if only one other structure is owned and only a 2 day reinforcement timer if it is the only owned structure remaining.
Currently occupying and using someone else's space provides no advantages to the squatters, perhaps the occupancy bonus should be applicable to either side depending on their level of use.
Currently many attackers can aide eachother's progress directly but defenders can not be directly aided by allies. This means that this gameplay can be reduced to n+1 in which the attacker just brings as many disposable ships with links as possible and can just destroy the fewer links of the defender for an assured victory. As stated previously, capture and reinforcement progress needs to be specific to the alliance. e.g.: an alliance should not be able to simply show up to a capture event in which they did not start the reinforcement. They should have to start a new reinforcement of their own and can only make progress in a capture event they initiated. |
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:09:03 -
[1871] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough. Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already.
5 man fleet. 2 Interceptors, 1 Covop cyno, 2 Blackops. Interceptors with E-Link start working on a structure, Sniper warps in to shoot them down, Covop lights up and Blackops jump in, Sniper dead.
Bring multiple snipers? Interceptors jump over a few systems and start again. Catch Sniper ships as they try to move around to keep up with interceptors. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
591
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:10:23 -
[1872] - Quote
It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry.
W-Space Realtor
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11984
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:12:24 -
[1873] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.
The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.
Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.
The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.
Since the **** when do you make sense?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:13:58 -
[1874] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:Eli Apol wrote:. If people are doing it purely for the 'troll' factor of making people undock then tittering like schoolgirls over to the next system then it sounds about as fun as cancer, I certainly wouldn't be signing up to waste my time in a fleet that does that. That's the problem. Harassment as it looks now appears to be the best strategy. Breaking their armies is impossible, so break their wills. While, yes, that's one way to win a war, we are looking for fun gameplay here. Put some onus on the attacker. It'll be harassment till either you take sov, or defenders bring something out worth dropping a blackops on. Long live the hotdrop meta.
I'd rather deal with hotdrops than interceptors. Seriously. It generates content, and there's guaranteed lossmails for at least one side.
Like, as it is now, or at least appears to be, it will be about speed and harassment, both of which are sort of boring in context.
Let's say the Entosis thing is deployable. I could un-dock a battleship gang to take it down, or any other gang of my choosing, and if they couldn't beat my gang, they'd accept a loss and move on. If they hotdrop on me, great, we should have a counter-drop prepared in this eventuality - We just got a real match! Let's go! If you can't defeat a hotdrop in your OWN system, you don't deserve that system.
Basically, by forcing a tangible, stationary ante to defend, it increases the chances of needing to escalate, which is a good thing. We all know our big toys are useless because everything is so fast, but this present system seems to be making that even worse, because speed is once again the answer.
The idea is to get big fleets undocked and blowing each other up. Much like FW, this system, with the Entosis thing as a ship module, appears to be encouraging its own low-risk meta akin to stabbed d-plexing.
If sov wants to succeed, it should promote skirmishes in prime time. Having the module instead be a deployable at least puts an entry fee on attacking to dissuade trolling.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising The Bastion
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:14:09 -
[1875] - Quote
While I don't agree that ceptors are going to be the main problem during major battles due to their ability to simply pop under fire. I do agree from a harassment standpoint they would be rather annoying. Are they going to be able to flip your station probably not, but get 100 ceptors running amoke in your space flipping **** would be really annoying.
What if CCP simply made the module so that ceptors were exempt from being able to use them? |
Praerian
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
77
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:14:30 -
[1876] - Quote
I agree with the above poster.
I understand Sov is broken however clicking on a module and playing lock out tennis doesn't float my boat.
Warfare and occupation is about burning down assets, destroying or claiming everything and seizing control.
This feels like a bit of a wet slap approach.
Primetime window is worst idea, but everyone pretty much agrees with that.
I think you have two options one is continue down this path as CCP always seem to despite feedback, or scrap the idea and get more ideas on the table.
People want a game to be fun and strategic, I think there are better solutions that can be sourced from the collective players. At the moment it seems like a few devs have a favoured style of play and they are trying to shoe horn everyone into the same style. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
804
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:15:57 -
[1877] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough. Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already. the only thing that hits an interceptor at 100km+ is praying for a wrecking shot
That's odd, my Cerberus ***** on them.
Are yours broken? |
Studio Ghibli
Starstuff Industrial Providence Initiative
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:16:27 -
[1878] - Quote
Reading from the beginning-
-but it sounds like they're trying to break up large sov-blocks, encourage play from smaller alliances, and also make it so power can easily trade hands.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3193
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:17:49 -
[1879] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough. Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already. 5 man fleet. 2 Interceptors, 1 Covop cyno, 2 Blackops. Interceptors with E-Link start working on a structure, Sniper warps in to shoot them down, Covop lights up and Blackops jump in, Sniper dead. Bring multiple snipers? Interceptors jump over a few systems and start again. Catch Sniper ships as they try to move around to keep up with interceptors. And the escalation begins. In a few iterations of counter vs counter, Titans will be on the field.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:18:32 -
[1880] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry.
Even if it's super cap hungry, you will only be going through 1 cycle. So you turn everything off, start up the E-Link, and then go back to burning around.
They have stated that they are looking to have E-Link have low fitting requirements. Most people are assuming it'll be about the same as fitting a turret or a launcher.
There a lot of other issues with the new sov, interceptors are just the most obvious and easily picked at. There is still very little benefit to owning sov. The indecies are still very crude guides (especially the Industry one). |
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:19:33 -
[1881] - Quote
Some good ideas there CCP. The proposed capture mechanics should make for much more interesting tactical and strategic gameplay. Also I really like the way you have tied it to constellations, that is a really nice idea.
The main issue I would raise is with the prime time mechanic. It is a blanket approach, and instead of adding more strategic and tactical options it does the opposite.
An alternative would be a to require the structure to need to be resupplied and maintained at which time it would become vulnerable. This could be then set individually for each structure at a time chosen by the alliance.
The changes look promising though and should definitely make things a lot more interesting by allowing some smaller players into the sov warfare game. |
Black Ambulance
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:20:15 -
[1882] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:Axloth Okiah wrote:It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry. Even if it's super cap hungry, you will only be going through 1 cycle. So you turn everything off, start up the E-Link, and then go back to burning around. They have stated that they are looking to have E-Link have low fitting requirements. Most people are assuming it'll be about the same as fitting a turret or a launcher. There a lot of other issues with the new sov, interceptors are just the most obvious and easily picked at. There is still very little benefit to owning sov. The indecies are still very crude guides (especially the Industry one). I wish it will have same fitting requirements as t1 salvager. |
Studio Ghibli
Starstuff Industrial Providence Initiative
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:20:47 -
[1883] - Quote
Burn it to the ground, CCP. I'll happily rise up from the ashes. :) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
804
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:20:50 -
[1884] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:Axloth Okiah wrote:It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry. Even if it's super cap hungry, you will only be going through 1 cycle. So you turn everything off, start up the E-Link, and then go back to burning around. They have stated that they are looking to have E-Link have low fitting requirements. Most people are assuming it'll be about the same as fitting a turret or a launcher. There a lot of other issues with the new sov, interceptors are just the most obvious and easily picked at. There is still very little benefit to owning sov. The indecies are still very crude guides (especially the Industry one).
Seriously, who cares? There's not an interceptor with the lock range needed in existence that missiles can't trash. Yay, CCP fixed missiles. |
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising The Bastion
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:22:05 -
[1885] - Quote
If this is the new sov mechanic there should be a 90% reduction to using jump bridges that your alliance owns. I can understand that using other alliances JB would give you a longer time but it would give alliances actually benefits to owning their space if they can respond to threats faster. |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:22:26 -
[1886] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Devi Loches wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough. Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already. 5 man fleet. 2 Interceptors, 1 Covop cyno, 2 Blackops. Interceptors with E-Link start working on a structure, Sniper warps in to shoot them down, Covop lights up and Blackops jump in, Sniper dead. Bring multiple snipers? Interceptors jump over a few systems and start again. Catch Sniper ships as they try to move around to keep up with interceptors. And the escalation begins. In a few iterations of counter vs counter, Titans will be on the field.
Large ships require time to move and get on field. This first timer is stationary but immediate response. The second timer are nodes scattered all over the place, it'll take forever for a cap ship to get in place at one. If you do, by that time, you'll capture the node and be going to the new one somewhere else.
tldr: No time for escalation.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
196
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:22:43 -
[1887] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Devi Loches wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough. Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already. 5 man fleet. 2 Interceptors, 1 Covop cyno, 2 Blackops. Interceptors with E-Link start working on a structure, Sniper warps in to shoot them down, Covop lights up and Blackops jump in, Sniper dead. Bring multiple snipers? Interceptors jump over a few systems and start again. Catch Sniper ships as they try to move around to keep up with interceptors. And the escalation begins. In a few iterations of counter vs counter, Titans will be on the field. Sounds like content to me \o/ |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
437
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:23:15 -
[1888] - Quote
Studio Ghibli wrote:Burn it to the ground, CCP. I'll happily rise up from the ashes. :)
Oh the irony, if only you knew what was about to happen |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:23:39 -
[1889] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough. Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already. the only thing that hits an interceptor at 100km+ is praying for a wrecking shot That's odd, my Cerberus ***** on them. Are yours broken? i guess if they are standing still, sure
if you rig for misl distance you are getting about 125km range on a cerb with a flight time of 12s
an interceptor orbiting at 120km covers 48 km in this time
120 + 48 > 125 |
Severn VonKarr
Manoop Material Acquisitions Cartel UMBRELLA C0RP0RATI0N
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:24:18 -
[1890] - Quote
Another major complaint people have about sov that has not been touched is the difficulty of getting involved. The biggest factor to that is that null is still logistically dependent on highsec due to the large volumes of products to export (moon goo) and cheap materials to import (trit). The deep null regions still need a way of moving things that doesn't involve the 8 billion isk price tag and indefensible nature of a jump freighter. Possible solutions: null-highsec wormholes, portal structure that is alliance use only, and that an alliance may only have one pair of that allows the connection of a null system to a lowsec system. |
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:25:18 -
[1891] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Devi Loches wrote:Axloth Okiah wrote:It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry. Even if it's super cap hungry, you will only be going through 1 cycle. So you turn everything off, start up the E-Link, and then go back to burning around. They have stated that they are looking to have E-Link have low fitting requirements. Most people are assuming it'll be about the same as fitting a turret or a launcher. There a lot of other issues with the new sov, interceptors are just the most obvious and easily picked at. There is still very little benefit to owning sov. The indecies are still very crude guides (especially the Industry one). Seriously, who cares? There's not an interceptor with the lock range needed in existence that missiles can't trash. Yay, CCP fixed missiles.
You have a sniping missile ship that can hit a frigate orbiting 110km away at 4km/s? Post it. |
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising The Bastion
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:25:20 -
[1892] - Quote
Sullen Decimus wrote:If this is the new sov mechanic there should be a 90% reduction to using jump bridges that your alliance owns. I can understand that using other alliances JB would give you a longer time but it would give alliances actually benefits to owning their space if they can respond to threats faster.
Furthermore under the new mechanic sprawling JB networks wouldn't be feasible because under the new mechanics long reaching ones would be easy to shut down while internal JB's in systems under constant use would be very difficult. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
804
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:25:30 -
[1893] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough. Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already. the only thing that hits an interceptor at 100km+ is praying for a wrecking shot That's odd, my Cerberus ***** on them. Are yours broken? i guess if they are standing still, sure if you rig for misl distance you are getting about 125km range on a cerb with a flight time of 12s an interceptor orbiting at 120km covers 48 km in this time 120 + 48 > 125
They cut corners, that only applies if they inty is straight lining away.
Alternatively, use an orth with 20+km/s light missiles. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
196
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:25:34 -
[1894] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:That's odd, my Cerberus ***** on them.
Are yours broken? i guess if they are standing still, sure if you rig for misl distance you are getting about 125km range on a cerb with a flight time of 12s an interceptor orbiting at 120km covers 48 km in this time 120 + 48 > 125 Fine we'll go back to the easy way: Drop a kitsune at zero, jam out the ceptor. What you gonna do about it all that far out? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
805
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:27:07 -
[1895] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:afkalt wrote:Devi Loches wrote:Axloth Okiah wrote:It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry. Even if it's super cap hungry, you will only be going through 1 cycle. So you turn everything off, start up the E-Link, and then go back to burning around. They have stated that they are looking to have E-Link have low fitting requirements. Most people are assuming it'll be about the same as fitting a turret or a launcher. There a lot of other issues with the new sov, interceptors are just the most obvious and easily picked at. There is still very little benefit to owning sov. The indecies are still very crude guides (especially the Industry one). Seriously, who cares? There's not an interceptor with the lock range needed in existence that missiles can't trash. Yay, CCP fixed missiles. You have a sniping missile ship that can hit a frigate orbiting 110km away at 4km/s? Post it.
With the time you have, a RAVEN will kill them |
Agnahr
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:27:30 -
[1896] - Quote
Interesting idea, but as a lot of people pointed out, the proposed mechanic makes it way too easy to grief populated area. You can come in outside the resident prime time and reinforce their structures in at most 40 minutes. It doesn't matter if you are actually coming back to conquer those structures, you can just smirk at the knowledge that you've just cause those people to have to spend 100 minutes conquering the 10 command nodes. Do this every day on their different stations, iHub and TCUs and the defenders will spend most of their prime time taking command nodes back. So this will become very boring very quickly.
So I approve the idea in principle, but please find a way to make the attacker commit to take the structures when the come out of reinforcement. Maybe if they don't show, after a certain amount of time the command nodes de-spawn and things are back to what they were before.
Similarly with the freeport mode. Come in when the alliance is asleep, spend 40 minutes reinforcing the station, then their station is your to enjoy for the the next 2 days. A bit too easy in my view. You could have an Australian alliance freely living in an European alliance space. Null sec has enough stations that when one come out of reinforcement, you can just move on to the next one few jumps away. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12272
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:30:19 -
[1897] - Quote
Finally caught up with the thread. :)
Hey folks, thanks for the feedback so far. I spent most of the day at work today reading feedback (here, on twitter, on reddit, in slack and just about everywhere else), taking notes, and discussing the feedback with the CSM and with our team here in the office. Thanks to all the people that have posted constructive feedback so far, in any of those places.
I want to reassure people that we've announced these plans this early for a reason. We want to take advantage of the time this gives us to carefully look at feedback and respond without needing to rush anything. In the past we probably would have waited until Fanfest just to get the reveal moment, but at this point we've learned as a company how much more important substance is than spectacle.
I've noticed a fair bit of skepticism about my comments that this design is built to be flexible, since similar phrases were used back in 2009. I too remember the launch of Dominion sov from the perspective of a player (I'm on record that Dominion is my least favourite EVE expansion) and I can't blame people for being cautious. This is the kind of thing where actions always speak louder than words, so I'll just say that I hope that for many of you the actions you've seen from CCP recently have increased your trust that we will follow through. And for those of you that are still unconvinced, my goal is to change some of your minds with our upcoming actions in this area of Nullsec and Sov.
Since this thread is a bit hectic, we're currently planning to do approach some of the conversation surrounding these changes a little differently. We'll be reading all the feedback here and elsewhere, and then pulling specific issues into their own dev blogs and own threads for further targeted discussion with fewer distractions. It's a bit of an experiment but I think it has a lot of potential.
After discussing the early feedback with the team here, we've decided to begin this feedback and iteration process with a focus on the time zone mechanics. We're seeing a ton of discussion and quite a bit of displeasure over the time zone mechanics as they are laid out in the blog. So you're going to see us asking a lot of questions in a number of different areas to the players who have opinions on the way we handle time zones in Sov. The goal is to get to the core of the concerns people are expressing about these mechanics, figure out what player needs we are missing in this draft, and see if we can't design a system that meets more of those needs more effectively. I don't expect we're going to make everybody happy, as time zone mechanics are one of the stickiest design issues in a worldwide single shard MMO. However we do think it's likely that your feedback can help get us to a better design than what we have right now.
I'll also probably be quickly spinning off a discussion of the module balance surrounding the Entosis Link, since that's an area where I expect we can calm some fears relatively easily. The short version is that we have all the tools of EVE's module design at our disposal to ensure that no specific tactics get out of hand. So if problems show up in discussion and playtesting we're happy to let players try to find a counter and then relatively easily step in if that counter doesn't materialize.
There's a lot of other areas where we're seeing your concern, and we're not forgetting about any of them. Keep posting your feedback calmly and constructively, keep talking to each other, keep theorycrafting and blogging and podcasting. As people spend more time discussing and thinking about the implications of these changes, we know that the collective EVE hive mind will have a lot to offer, as it has in the past.
I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok?
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
196
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:30:39 -
[1898] - Quote
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. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
805
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:33:32 -
[1899] - 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 a maulus.
Cheaper again.
|
Gevlin
House of the Dead Monkey SpaceMonkey's Alliance
255
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:34:26 -
[1900] - Quote
Might have an NPC Defense force installed in the system.
Spending isk into the system to have Alliance owned NPC to defend the system vs small skirmishes.
Then it would be fun to simply Rat in enemy space and collect their wrecks they have paid for.
I am sure there are Maltia off of planet that would love the opportunity to defend their homes.
Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again.
|
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:36:01 -
[1901] - 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.
So far this seems like the only reasonable counter to the trollceptors I've seen. It keeps the risks of defense roughly equal to that of the attackers. (Not the insanely expensive interceptors mentioned above, just the basic interceptors that would be common. Interceptor fleets vs ewar fleets.) |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
438
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:37:04 -
[1902] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Finally caught up with the thread. :)
Good stuff, thanks. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:37:07 -
[1903] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: i guess if they are standing still, sure
if you rig for misl distance you are getting about 125km range on a cerb with a flight time of 12s
an interceptor orbiting at 120km covers 48 km in this time
120 + 48 > 125
They cut corners, that only applies if they inty is straight lining away. Alternatively, use an orth with 20+km/s light missiles. a misl range rigged orthrus only has an engagement envelope of 100km, and that is while further gimping the tank to include the sensor booster needed to lock that far
an interceptor also beats a heated orthrus's speed by a good kilometer a second or so |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
806
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:37:44 -
[1904] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote: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. So far this seems like the only reasonable counter to the trollceptors I've seen. It keeps the risks of defense roughly equal to that of the attackers. (Not the insanely expensive interceptors mentioned above, just the basic interceptors that would be common. Interceptor fleets vs ewar fleets.)
And as I've said "basic" interceptors will die in a fire to missile ships. Even the "speed" ones will die.
At 100m+ per SHIP at the death rate, they'll quickly stop becoming "throwaway". |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
197
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:37:55 -
[1905] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:So far this seems like the only reasonable counter to the trollceptors I've seen. It keeps the risks of defense roughly equal to that of the attackers. (Not the insanely expensive interceptors mentioned above, just the basic interceptors that would be common. Interceptor fleets vs ewar fleets.) The T2 module is 100m iirc so either the inties are orbitting within easy web scram range with the T1 version, or they cost 100m+
Which is also gonna be hilarious if they hit a smartbomb camp on the way out |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
806
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:38:40 -
[1906] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: i guess if they are standing still, sure
if you rig for misl distance you are getting about 125km range on a cerb with a flight time of 12s
an interceptor orbiting at 120km covers 48 km in this time
120 + 48 > 125
They cut corners, that only applies if they inty is straight lining away. Alternatively, use an orth with 20+km/s light missiles. a misl range rigged orthrus only has an engagement envelope of 100km, and that is while further gimping the tank to include the sensor booster needed to lock that far an interceptor also beats a heated orthrus's speed by a good kilometer a second or so
And the trollceptor will kill it, right?
Or not.
People are talking about snakes and quafe, what is a missile speed implant against that? |
Gevlin
House of the Dead Monkey SpaceMonkey's Alliance
256
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:38:59 -
[1907] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Finally caught up with the thread. :) ... and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok?
You so know that will never happen!
Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again.
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3955
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:40:00 -
[1908] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Finally caught up with the thread. :) Slacker, I was already across the finish line....
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
806
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:40:46 -
[1909] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Finally caught up with the thread. :) Slacker, I was already across the finish line....
Red Queen scenario..... |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2112
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:42:39 -
[1910] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok? Big smile yay blogs \o/ |
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:42:40 -
[1911] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Devi Loches wrote:So far this seems like the only reasonable counter to the trollceptors I've seen. It keeps the risks of defense roughly equal to that of the attackers. (Not the insanely expensive interceptors mentioned above, just the basic interceptors that would be common. Interceptor fleets vs ewar fleets.) The T2 module is 100m iirc so either the inties are orbitting within easy web scram range with the T1 version, or they cost 100m+ Which is also gonna be hilarious if they hit a smartbomb camp on the way out
While 100mil is not exactly chump change, large coalitions have already shown that they have isk to throw at cap ship SRP. The cost might keep small corps and alliances from doing this, but not the large ones. They can replace 20 of these interceptors compared to 1 dread. |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:44:22 -
[1912] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Devi Loches wrote: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. So far this seems like the only reasonable counter to the trollceptors I've seen. It keeps the risks of defense roughly equal to that of the attackers. (Not the insanely expensive interceptors mentioned above, just the basic interceptors that would be common. Interceptor fleets vs ewar fleets.) And as I've said "basic" interceptors will die in a fire to missile ships. Even the "speed" ones will die. At 100m+ per SHIP at the death rate, they'll quickly stop becoming "throwaway".
And so people actually start using defender missiles to protect themselves from the ones they can't outrun. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:44:45 -
[1913] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: i guess if they are standing still, sure
if you rig for misl distance you are getting about 125km range on a cerb with a flight time of 12s
an interceptor orbiting at 120km covers 48 km in this time
120 + 48 > 125
They cut corners, that only applies if they inty is straight lining away. Alternatively, use an orth with 20+km/s light missiles. a misl range rigged orthrus only has an engagement envelope of 100km, and that is while further gimping the tank to include the sensor booster needed to lock that far an interceptor also beats a heated orthrus's speed by a good kilometer a second or so And the trollceptor will kill it, right? Or not. People are talking about snakes and quafe, what is a missile speed implant against that? it doesn't have to beat the orthrus, just not die to it until the artosis link finishes the job
also i do like that you are having to use a 280m ship and 750m of implants to kill a 20m frig with an 80m module |
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
299
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:46:03 -
[1914] - Quote
An interesting system with a few flaws which, if addressed, would make it worth trying on TQ.
* Reduce the range on the T2 entosis link to 50km. You want to bring ships in at a reasonable range for a fight to happen, and not just have a bunch of inty's circling the target at max range.
* Consider the minimum PG requirements of the entosis module to require a battlecruiser or above to use, again, to force actual fights instead of kiting/trolling crap.
* Perhaps the entosis module also prevents propulsion mods from activating? Just a thought.
* It might be more interesting to use the hacking minigame in some fashion instead of adding a 'sov laser'.
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1701
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:47:06 -
[1915] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote: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. So far this seems like the only reasonable counter to the trollceptors I've seen. It keeps the risks of defense roughly equal to that of the attackers. (Not the insanely expensive interceptors mentioned above, just the basic interceptors that would be common. Interceptor fleets vs ewar fleets.)
The main issue is not the ISK vs ISK. It is the huge imbalance of afk cloaking attacker time vs defender vigilance. Because the system quickly spirals into massive consequences with minimal time investment on the part of attackers it will result in a horribly lopsided mechanic.
For example, lets say blackops/reavers park 20-50 dudes afk cloaking in a region and their only goal is to flip/kill things the moment people aren't looking. So your choice as a defender is to have hyper vigilance every day during your period across all assets or suffer massive consequences. I doubt how many people realize how bad IHuBs are to deal with.
The only investment on an attackers part is an alt and some brief attention spans when they feel like watching. The investment on the defenders part is a period of hyper vigilance across every system they own. Multiply this by the attackers being able to do this across all of null at random and you see the problem. If you tell people they can lock dudes out of their capital with a single real fight then lawl. Why would anyone store any amount of material in a null station. Move to NPC null or a lowsec border system.
This is going to heavily incentivize ice-bergging again. The timers basically need to preserve 2-3 fights before huge consequences (freeport) and have a FAR bigger bonus to high indexes. A 5/5 index system should take at least 1 hour if not 2. At least until someone fixes freaking industry indexes god.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
806
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:48:14 -
[1916] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: i guess if they are standing still, sure
if you rig for misl distance you are getting about 125km range on a cerb with a flight time of 12s
an interceptor orbiting at 120km covers 48 km in this time
120 + 48 > 125
They cut corners, that only applies if they inty is straight lining away. Alternatively, use an orth with 20+km/s light missiles. a misl range rigged orthrus only has an engagement envelope of 100km, and that is while further gimping the tank to include the sensor booster needed to lock that far an interceptor also beats a heated orthrus's speed by a good kilometer a second or so And the trollceptor will kill it, right? Or not. People are talking about snakes and quafe, what is a missile speed implant against that? it doesn't have to beat the orthrus, just not die to it until the artosis link finishes the job also i do like that you are having to use a 280m ship and 750m of implants to kill a 20m frig with an 80m module
Or I could use a cheapass cruiser and block the link....
Stop the melodrama. Interceptors threaten sprawling, indefensible empires. NOTHING MORE.
Stop being bad, stop derailing with FUD about "trollceptors" and maybe we can all get a decent future.
These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
404
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:49:08 -
[1917] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Here is a suggestion: CCP needs to actually listen to the nullsec CSM representatives (they are largely disregarding input from CSM reps with Sov changes). Or hire someone that is well versed in nullsec to actually work at CCP. Indeed, they should. I don't think we can name any other game on MMO market that has a developer team with a chronic inability to understand it's player driven dynamics and narratives. Two things... First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...). Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.
Lol. I like this
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:49:39 -
[1918] - Quote
Galphii wrote:An interesting system with a few flaws which, if addressed, would make it worth trying on TQ.
* Reduce the range on the T2 entosis link to 50km. You want to bring ships in at a reasonable range for a fight to happen, and not just have a bunch of inty's circling the target at max range.
* Consider the minimum PG requirements of the entosis module to require a battlecruiser or above to use, again, to force actual fights instead of kiting/trolling crap.
* Perhaps the entosis module also prevents propulsion mods from activating? Just a thought.
* It might be more interesting to use the hacking minigame in some fashion instead of adding a 'sov laser'.
Yes
Yes, though personally I'd say cruisers
Yes, or a speed penalty like cloaking devices
No, sov is a game already, you don't need to 'hack' sov. It should be a sign of brute force. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:50:28 -
[1919] - Quote
afkalt wrote:These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. Precisely, it's no surprise that they're being hyped up as gamebreaking by TMC and on this thread - it's because goons don't want them to threaten their sprawl and want to get rid of them now. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2113
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:52:41 -
[1920] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: i guess if they are standing still, sure
if you rig for misl distance you are getting about 125km range on a cerb with a flight time of 12s
an interceptor orbiting at 120km covers 48 km in this time
120 + 48 > 125
They cut corners, that only applies if they inty is straight lining away. Alternatively, use an orth with 20+km/s light missiles. a misl range rigged orthrus only has an engagement envelope of 100km, and that is while further gimping the tank to include the sensor booster needed to lock that far an interceptor also beats a heated orthrus's speed by a good kilometer a second or so And the trollceptor will kill it, right? Or not. People are talking about snakes and quafe, what is a missile speed implant against that? it doesn't have to beat the orthrus, just not die to it until the artosis link finishes the job also i do like that you are having to use a 280m ship and 750m of implants to kill a 20m frig with an 80m module 1 keres with its own link, damp them down back to normal target range and then bring in a cheap caracal.
isk balanced enough? |
|
Uncle Shrimpa
Lap Dancers Brothers of Tangra
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:52:42 -
[1921] - Quote
Aryth wrote: This is going to heavily incentivize ice-bergging again. The timers basically need to preserve 2-3 fights before huge consequences (freeport) and have a FAR bigger bonus to high indexes. A 5/5 index system should take at least 1 hour if not 2. At least until someone fixes freaking industry indexes god.
That fact that it takes 50 hulks several hours a day to maintain level 5 index vs a few ratter a couples hours a day to maintain military index is so far into the stupid category it isn't funny
That and you spent how many months revamping Industry, then screwed it up by removing teams with NO restitution, NOW you plan on implementing a sov mechanic based on occupancy and don't take into account ANY industry that goes on in a system.
So basically, shoot red X's or you are ****
CCP Greyscale -Yup, we have data on what happens currently, but we're expecting those use patterns to change substantially when this release. There's a degree of "suck it and see" happening here :)
|
Kochab Itinen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:53:35 -
[1922] - Quote
With this revamp, small scale ships will be promoted in null sec. To be honest, I don't want a copy-paste of the low-sec factionnal warfare in null sec.
RIP capital ships ? |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:56:06 -
[1923] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:afkalt wrote:These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. Precisely, it's no surprise that they're being hyped up as gamebreaking by TMC and on this thread - it's because goons don't want them to threaten their sprawl and want to get rid of them now. I have no connection to Goons whatsoever. I live in a single constellation that my alliance owns. I'm worried about these interceptors trolling and keeping me from being able to go have real fights by either swatting at them or endlessly counter-camping. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:56:18 -
[1924] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:afkalt wrote:These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. Precisely, it's no surprise that they're being hyped up as gamebreaking by TMC and on this thread - it's because goons don't want them to threaten their sprawl and want to get rid of them now. Hat, thy name is tinfoil. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
560
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:58:02 -
[1925] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:it doesn't have to beat the orthrus, just not die to it until the artosis link finishes the job
also i do like that you are having to use a 280m ship and 750m of implants to kill a 20m frig with an 80m module Or I could use a cheapass cruiser and block the link.... Stop the melodrama. Interceptors threaten sprawling, indefensible empires. NOTHING MORE. Stop being bad, stop derailing with FUD about "trollceptors" and maybe we can all get a decent future. These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. the inteceptor then shrugs, burns off grid, and hits another node or sov structure, and cannot be stopped if the pilot uses a shred of intellect while burning around a region
you can't bridge around them due to fatigue, you can't warp faster than them, and outside of serious pilot error, they cannot be caught while traveling
stop focusing on the individual fight (especially since you are bad at theorycrafting them) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
807
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:58:14 -
[1926] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:Eli Apol wrote:afkalt wrote:These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. Precisely, it's no surprise that they're being hyped up as gamebreaking by TMC and on this thread - it's because goons don't want them to threaten their sprawl and want to get rid of them now. I have no connection to Goons whatsoever. I live in a single constellation that my alliance owns. I'm worried about these interceptors trolling and keeping me from being able to go have real fights by either swatting at them or endlessly counter-camping.
What, all 4 hours of "prime time" YOU DICTATE?
The horror you might have a 4 hour kill farming window.
WOE IS ME. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
560
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:59:07 -
[1927] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Aryth wrote: This is going to heavily incentivize ice-bergging again. The timers basically need to preserve 2-3 fights before huge consequences (freeport) and have a FAR bigger bonus to high indexes. A 5/5 index system should take at least 1 hour if not 2. At least until someone fixes freaking industry indexes god.
That fact that it takes 50 hulks several hours a day to maintain level 5 index vs a few ratter a couples hours a day to maintain military index is so far into the stupid category it isn't funny That and you spent how many months revamping Industry, then screwed it up by removing teams with NO restitution, NOW you plan on implementing a sov mechanic based on occupancy and don't take into account ANY industry that goes on in a system. So basically, shoot red X's or you are **** agreed
manufacturing, research, PI, pos reactors (not mining) and hacking mini-game sites should all contribute to the industrial index |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
807
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:59:49 -
[1928] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:it doesn't have to beat the orthrus, just not die to it until the artosis link finishes the job
also i do like that you are having to use a 280m ship and 750m of implants to kill a 20m frig with an 80m module Or I could use a cheapass cruiser and block the link.... Stop the melodrama. Interceptors threaten sprawling, indefensible empires. NOTHING MORE. Stop being bad, stop derailing with FUD about "trollceptors" and maybe we can all get a decent future. These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. the inteceptor then shrugs, burns off grid, and hits another node or sov structure, and cannot be stopped if the pilot uses a shred of intellect while burning around a region you can't bridge around them due to fatigue, you can't warp faster than them, and outside of serious pilot error, they cannot be caught while traveling stop focusing on the individual fight (especially since you are bad at theorycrafting them)
Again, an empire of APPROPRIATE SIZE will give zero craps about this.
Funny that. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
218
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:00:15 -
[1929] - Quote
Kochab Itinen wrote:With this revamp, small scale ships will be promoted in null sec. To be honest, I don't want a copy-paste of the low-sec factionnal warfare in null sec.
RIP capital ships ?
There will still be a big fight over who gets their entosis link on the command modules and other structures. We may not shoot other structures, but we will shoot each other. If 2 fleets are fighting each other escalations are bound to happen.
One brings triage, one brings dreads, one brings supers etc. Next thing you know B-R v2 happens |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:01:15 -
[1930] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:I have no connection to Goons whatsoever. I live in a single constellation that my alliance owns. I'm worried about these interceptors trolling and keeping me from being able to go have real fights by either swatting at them or endlessly counter-camping. Endlessly... for four hours in the actual space you're actively using anyways.
Lord TGR wrote:Hat, thy name is tinfoil. Oh look here's one of them, surprisingly you don't like the idea of them either and try to disparage my remarks rather than dealing with the fact that the obvious counter is pretty much ANYTHING in the game sitting at zero and running a defensive link. You could probably do it with a rorqual whilst boosting your mining fleet if you really want to bait them into an actual fight |
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:02:16 -
[1931] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:it doesn't have to beat the orthrus, just not die to it until the artosis link finishes the job
also i do like that you are having to use a 280m ship and 750m of implants to kill a 20m frig with an 80m module Or I could use a cheapass cruiser and block the link.... Stop the melodrama. Interceptors threaten sprawling, indefensible empires. NOTHING MORE. Stop being bad, stop derailing with FUD about "trollceptors" and maybe we can all get a decent future. These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. the inteceptor then shrugs, burns off grid, and hits another node or sov structure, and cannot be stopped if the pilot uses a shred of intellect while burning around a region you can't bridge around them due to fatigue, you can't warp faster than them, and outside of serious pilot error, they cannot be caught while traveling stop focusing on the individual fight (especially since you are bad at theorycrafting them) Again, an empire of APPROPRIATE SIZE will give zero craps about this. Funny that. I'm confident that we've got enough manpower to give "zero craps" about this, and that if anything, we're actually trying to point out an actual problem which'll affect other, smaller groups than us to a much greater degree.
But that'd be ludicrous, right? Because grrgoons. |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:03:09 -
[1932] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Devi Loches wrote:Eli Apol wrote:afkalt wrote:These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. Precisely, it's no surprise that they're being hyped up as gamebreaking by TMC and on this thread - it's because goons don't want them to threaten their sprawl and want to get rid of them now. I have no connection to Goons whatsoever. I live in a single constellation that my alliance owns. I'm worried about these interceptors trolling and keeping me from being able to go have real fights by either swatting at them or endlessly counter-camping. What, all 4 hours of "prime time" YOU DICTATE? The horror you might have a 4 hour kill farming window. WOE IS ME.
The primetime window is terrible too. Basically, I'm against a system that requires significantly less time and isk investment to attack and harass than defend. And if you want to camp your own system during your main playtime, then go ahead. My 'primetime' is more valuable to me than being forced to sit around and protect a flag from a couple cloaky campers or interceptors that have no real intention of trying to take and hold sov that I actually live in. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:03:57 -
[1933] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Devi Loches wrote:I have no connection to Goons whatsoever. I live in a single constellation that my alliance owns. I'm worried about these interceptors trolling and keeping me from being able to go have real fights by either swatting at them or endlessly counter-camping. Endlessly... for four hours in the actual space you're actively using anyways. Lord TGR wrote:Hat, thy name is tinfoil. Oh look here's one of them, surprisingly you don't like the idea of them either and try to disparage my remarks rather than dealing with the fact that the obvious counter is pretty much ANYTHING in the game sitting at zero and running a defensive link. You could probably do it with a rorqual whilst boosting your mining fleet if you really want to bait them into an actual fight I guess you've missed out the numerous times I've said that all you have to do is exactly that. I'll add to that the fact that we do have enough manpower to do this, and I'm sure we'll be able to keep that up way longer than you'll bother to try to troll around in, say, deklein. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
439
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:04:50 -
[1934] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:I'm confident that we've got enough manpower to give "zero craps" about this, and that if anything, we're actually trying to point out an actual problem which'll affect other, smaller groups than us to a much greater degree.
But that'd be ludicrous, right? Because grrgoons.
Shhh, stop helping them.
We approve of all of these changes 100%. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
560
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:04:57 -
[1935] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: the inteceptor then shrugs, burns off grid, and hits another node or sov structure, and cannot be stopped if the pilot uses a shred of intellect while burning around a region
you can't bridge around them due to fatigue, you can't warp faster than them, and outside of serious pilot error, they cannot be caught while traveling
stop focusing on the individual fight (especially since you are bad at theorycrafting them)
Again, an empire of APPROPRIATE SIZE will give zero craps about this. Funny that. the problem is that the appropriate size to counter interceptor shenanigans increases by ten for every pilot in the opfor
did it occur to you that with our numbers, we can make any defense untenable |
Studio Ghibli
Starstuff Industrial Providence Initiative
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:08:01 -
[1936] - Quote
Provi-resident here.
I like it. Gives me the impression that coalitions will have to be (1) smaller and (2) be more philosophically-aligned, but I could also simply be a Provi-bear.
Combat and ownership seem more fluid, too.
The time-zone thing needs work. And this does really force the issue of afk cloakies. Tie the entosis link to a specific hull or hull-size or something. |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:08:04 -
[1937] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Devi Loches wrote:I have no connection to Goons whatsoever. I live in a single constellation that my alliance owns. I'm worried about these interceptors trolling and keeping me from being able to go have real fights by either swatting at them or endlessly counter-camping. Endlessly... for four hours in the actual space you're actively using anyways. Lord TGR wrote:Hat, thy name is tinfoil. Oh look here's one of them, surprisingly you don't like the idea of them either and try to disparage my remarks rather than dealing with the fact that the obvious counter is pretty much ANYTHING in the game sitting at zero and running a defensive link. You could probably do it with a rorqual whilst boosting your mining fleet if you really want to bait them into an actual fight
The goal of defense isn't to bait attackers to fight, it's the other way around. Sitting at zero with anything for defense is basically iceberging. The goal isn't to create more camping, but actual fights. Interceptors are one way to show that this does not actually create dynamic fights. |
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:09:20 -
[1938] - Quote
The uncatchable interceptor has without a doubt been the worst change in recent years |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
561
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:10:20 -
[1939] - Quote
hardlock all ships to min 3s align except shuttle and pod until the game can handle 500ms ticks
boom i fixed eve
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
200
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:13:11 -
[1940] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:The goal of defense isn't to bait attackers to fight, it's the other way around. Sitting at zero with anything for defense is basically iceberging. The goal isn't to create more camping, but actual fights. Interceptors are one way to show that this does not actually create dynamic fights. Attackers SHOULD have the initiative in conflict. Defenders SHOULD be reactive. It's kinda the way these things generally work.
The interceptors ALWAYS have a choice to engage the defender that is forced to come out of their station and react to their presence.
Then you can try to bait them into attacking the wrong ship at the wrong time if you want and turn the tables. If you want more pvp yourself, go out and attack other people, force them to come and defend their territory and get some GFs of your own. |
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
439
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:14:25 -
[1941] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Devi Loches wrote:The goal of defense isn't to bait attackers to fight, it's the other way around. Sitting at zero with anything for defense is basically iceberging. The goal isn't to create more camping, but actual fights. Interceptors are one way to show that this does not actually create dynamic fights. Attackers SHOULD have the initiative in conflict. Defenders SHOULD be reactive. It's kinda the way these things generally work. The interceptors ALWAYS have a choice to engage the defender that is forced to come out of their station and react to their presence. Then you can try to bait them into attacking the wrong ship at the wrong time if you want and turn the tables. If you want more pvp yourself, go out and attack other people, force them to come and defend their territory and get some GFs of your own.
Hello guy that has no clue what he's talking about.
What game is this that you are playing where these things happen? |
Proton Stars
OREfull
53
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:15:14 -
[1942] - Quote
Anyone who thinks these changes damage goons, especially when they owns region like deklien that is fantastically dense is equally dense.
The cfc may contract a little sure, but into something more powerful than they are now. As weaker alliances like fcon, sma and Fa shrink and snuggle up to goons borders. Meaning goons can be protected by their blues whilst on deployment and visa versa. In fact cfc are Proberbly the only entity in eve now that can both hold space and conquer it at the same time. Pretty damn scary for anyone trying to start out in 0.0 because if you look half decent, you'll be wiped out before you can build by a SIG. |
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
153
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:17:28 -
[1943] - Quote
If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
Vajrabhairava
Windrammers Black Legion.
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:20:41 -
[1944] - Quote
Leisha Miranen wrote: #1) Who wants coalitions gone? I like coalitions, personally. I've never seen anyone whining that coalitions are the issue.
Um, anyone who talks about the Blue donut is complaining about coalitions. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
808
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:21:13 -
[1945] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: the inteceptor then shrugs, burns off grid, and hits another node or sov structure, and cannot be stopped if the pilot uses a shred of intellect while burning around a region
you can't bridge around them due to fatigue, you can't warp faster than them, and outside of serious pilot error, they cannot be caught while traveling
stop focusing on the individual fight (especially since you are bad at theorycrafting them)
Again, an empire of APPROPRIATE SIZE will give zero craps about this. Funny that. the problem is that the appropriate size to counter interceptor shenanigans increases by ten for every pilot in the opfor did it occur to you that with our numbers, we can make any defense untenable
Like you did with siphons? The same melodrama was used there. And sure, for a while indeed ....then people got bored |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
200
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:21:15 -
[1946] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours. Sounds like good content creation - then they'll just flip it back 2 days later once you're bored of it - or are you actually then going to commit to fighting there, inhabiting the space and raising the indices yourself?
It'd be great to see Goons come through on this, own the whole map for 2 days if you think you can - I'd be a willing spectator to a player driven event like that. |
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
153
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:27:00 -
[1947] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours. Sounds like good content creation - then they'll just flip it back 2 days later once you're bored of it - or are you actually then going to commit to fighting there, inhabiting the space and raising the indices yourself? It'd be great to see Goons come through on this, own the whole map for 2 days if you think you can - I'd be a willing spectator to a player driven event like that.
You're missing the point. We decide what and where to fight when we're in interceptors. Sure, we might not get all the reinforcement timers but we're going to deny you content other than using Entosis Links.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
561
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:28:02 -
[1948] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: the inteceptor then shrugs, burns off grid, and hits another node or sov structure, and cannot be stopped if the pilot uses a shred of intellect while burning around a region
you can't bridge around them due to fatigue, you can't warp faster than them, and outside of serious pilot error, they cannot be caught while traveling
stop focusing on the individual fight (especially since you are bad at theorycrafting them)
Again, an empire of APPROPRIATE SIZE will give zero craps about this. Funny that. the problem is that the appropriate size to counter interceptor shenanigans increases by ten for every pilot in the opfor did it occur to you that with our numbers, we can make any defense untenable Like you did with siphons? The same melodrama was used there. And sure, for a while indeed ....then people got bored that is because siphons do practically nothing
being able to pop an ihub by using a halitosis module means that you set back the sov index 100 days, wipe out the industrial/military index, and require between one and nine freighters to visit the system, per ihub you pop
this is considerably more significant than making 8m isk/hr with a mandatory twice a day login by siphoning a moon |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
200
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:30:07 -
[1949] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours. Sounds like good content creation - then they'll just flip it back 2 days later once you're bored of it - or are you actually then going to commit to fighting there, inhabiting the space and raising the indices yourself? It'd be great to see Goons come through on this, own the whole map for 2 days if you think you can - I'd be a willing spectator to a player driven event like that. You're missing the point. We decide what and where to fight when we're in interceptors. Sure, we might not get all the reinforcement timers but we're going to deny you content other than using Entosis Links. So you're gonna provide me content by taking an interceptor roam across provi for four hours and somehow you're going to deny me content... just so I know that you know, what does my main actually do in the game that you're going to deny me of? |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
561
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:32:54 -
[1950] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours. Sounds like good content creation - then they'll just flip it back 2 days later once you're bored of it - or are you actually then going to commit to fighting there, inhabiting the space and raising the indices yourself? It'd be great to see Goons come through on this, own the whole map for 2 days if you think you can - I'd be a willing spectator to a player driven event like that. You're missing the point. We decide what and where to fight when we're in interceptors. Sure, we might not get all the reinforcement timers but we're going to deny you content other than using Entosis Links. So you're gonna provide me content by taking an interceptor roam across provi for four hours and somehow you're going to deny me content... just so I know that you know, what does my main actually do in the game that you're going to deny me of? won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes |
|
Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:35:29 -
[1951] - Quote
Just dropping by to rephrase an earlier point after having thought on it.
I am of the opinion that the Entosis modules need to be made either expensive or fitteable by BC and above, including their T2 counterparts. This is to prevent griefing by throwaway ships and fight-farming without an investment of at least a few hundred million isk.
The first way has the benefit of letting players use whatever ships they want, leaving room for crazy fits and experimentation, but has the drawback of requiring more work to make sure there aren't any edge cases where players just bypass the no-warp limitation by just burning into a new grid, and similar lunacy.
The second way would give some new life to the much underused battleship and combat battlecruiser hulls, which are in a terrible place at the moment, as evidenced by the fixed damage graph that has been making the rounds (if you need to split up cruisers into three blocks so they don't look dominating, you're doing something wrong)
Also, timers. They are way too short for occupied systems, and the fact that indy indexes are 0 on average across New Eden only makes matters worse. I live in Providence, a very populated and active region by any metric, and our indy indexes are near 0, military ones are mediocre outside of ratting pockets. For me this is not a case of "go defend you space or lose it", but a case of "all my active playing time is gonna be spent chasing off trolls from different blocs armed with sov lasers". As your numbers stand right now, it's too easy for a neverending stream of bored people to come and threaten our space and station services for little risk, and even if we kill them all, all we get are a bunch of sub-50m killmails and no time to do anything else during our primetime, while out-of-primetime pilots suffer the opposite situation. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
53
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:35:46 -
[1952] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours. Sounds like good content creation - then they'll just flip it back 2 days later once you're bored of it - or are you actually then going to commit to fighting there, inhabiting the space and raising the indices yourself? It'd be great to see Goons come through on this, own the whole map for 2 days if you think you can - I'd be a willing spectator to a player driven event like that. You're missing the point. We decide what and where to fight when we're in interceptors. Sure, we might not get all the reinforcement timers but we're going to deny you content other than using Entosis Links. So you're gonna provide me content by taking an interceptor roam across provi for four hours and somehow you're going to deny me content... just so I know that you know, what does my main actually do in the game that you're going to deny me of? won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes
Not sure I'd call 200 interceptors avoiding me in my space content tbh. |
Dyphorus
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:37:00 -
[1953] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:
Suggestion: FORCE alliances to choose one DIFFERENT time window for each constellation where they hold sov. Implications:.......
This should be added to the new system. I like the overall plan that CCP is working towards, this adds scaling based on the size of the alliance and amount of space they would like to hold. It also clears up a lot of the complaints about having to limit alliances to a single TZ.
On another note, it's interesting to see that the loudest voices crying out against this are groups that hold huge swaths of space that sits empty 99% of the time. Considering this is exactly the problem CCP is trying to correct, the new plan appears to hit pretty close to the mark to elicit such a strong reaction.
I also love the idea of spreading a fight out over a constellation. It astounds me that people think this sounds less fun that 4000 pilots sitting in a system, at 10% TIDI, hitting F1 once every 5 minutes. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:37:03 -
[1954] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes brb putting some ewar frigs on the market in provi |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:37:11 -
[1955] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours. Sounds like good content creation - then they'll just flip it back 2 days later once you're bored of it - or are you actually then going to commit to fighting there, inhabiting the space and raising the indices yourself? It'd be great to see Goons come through on this, own the whole map for 2 days if you think you can - I'd be a willing spectator to a player driven event like that.
Since TCU won't have a cost attached to it, this seriously can happen. They can go around, blow up all the iHubs, plant TCUs everywhere, and force all stations into freeport mode. The fact that you think Goons aren't a threat and this is a joke shows you don't realize why small alliances don't like these changes. It supports slash and burn tactics. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
561
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:37:36 -
[1956] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes Not sure I'd call 200 interceptors avoiding me in my space content tbh. agreed
i dunno if y'all noticed but if at any point a goonswarm federation fleet creates "content" we have failed in our primary objective
(we fail quite a bit of course but hey the struggle of man is to continually try to meet the platonic ideal, even if you never get there) |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:39:49 -
[1957] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Not sure I'd call 200 interceptors avoiding me in my space content tbh. See this is why I asked if they could even hazard a guess at what my mains do...do they live in provi? Maybe I'm a goon spy? Maybe I live in a wormhole...or highsec...or lowsec? I mean the threat was that they were going to deny me content yet they don't even have a clue where I live in the game, let alone what I get upto which is lolworthy especially when I know I was on their intel channels in goonspace over the last few days :D |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6550
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:42:43 -
[1958] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Proton Stars wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes Not sure I'd call 200 interceptors avoiding me in my space content tbh. agreed i dunno if y'all noticed but if at any point a goonswarm federation fleet creates "content" we have failed in our primary objective (we fail quite a bit of course but hey the struggle of man is to continually try to meet the platonic ideal, even if you never get there) Just because we fail frequently doesn't mean others automatically win.
Otherwise our 0.0 nightmare would've ended already
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
561
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:43:55 -
[1959] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Proton Stars wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes Not sure I'd call 200 interceptors avoiding me in my space content tbh. agreed i dunno if y'all noticed but if at any point a goonswarm federation fleet creates "content" we have failed in our primary objective (we fail quite a bit of course but hey the struggle of man is to continually try to meet the platonic ideal, even if you never get there) Just because we fail frequently doesn't mean others automatically win. Otherwise our 0.0 nightmare would've ended already I meant fail at denying the creation of "content", not whatever strategic objective is at play |
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
156
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:52:38 -
[1960] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours. Sounds like good content creation - then they'll just flip it back 2 days later once you're bored of it - or are you actually then going to commit to fighting there, inhabiting the space and raising the indices yourself? It'd be great to see Goons come through on this, own the whole map for 2 days if you think you can - I'd be a willing spectator to a player driven event like that. You're missing the point. We decide what and where to fight when we're in interceptors. Sure, we might not get all the reinforcement timers but we're going to deny you content other than using Entosis Links. So you're gonna provide me content by taking an interceptor roam across provi for four hours and somehow you're going to deny me content... just so I know that you know, what does my main actually do in the game that you're going to deny me of?
No, that's the point. We're not going to provide any content to whatever alliance holds the space. We're going to take their sov with an interceptor fleet because we dictate the battles and they will be unable to catch all of us. Which is essentially almost like Dominion sov where n+1 always wins.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30759
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:52:50 -
[1961] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:Actually... can we get a clarification on whether the increase in Entosis cycle time on capitals increases the time it takes them to capture, or if it only increases the time it takes them to start capturing? I'm pretty sure it translates into a longer run-up time, but the same effect as subcapital Entosis after that.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Gorgof Intake
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
53
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:53:00 -
[1962] - Quote
I really wish someone from CCP would jump in here and give us a #rough# idea of whether or not frigs will be able to fit these things so we can actually move the discussion forward rather than shitpost each other about how big our 'hammers' are and how we can go ownzone the world in ceptors cos we are that kewl and shtuff.
Some Thoughts on Sov Mechanics
DEADPACKS: Alternative Sov Mechanic
|
FlameOfSurvival
Kriegsmarinewerft Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:54:39 -
[1963] - Quote
Sure we need Sov changes
but
where is the risk for the attacker? this is just an annyoing system that force sov holder to constantly show up to timers just because a random pubby RFed a system just 4 fun
increase the module price up to 100m-500m or let this module only be fitted on caps or increase the timer by 3x-8x |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:57:26 -
[1964] - Quote
FlameOfSurvival wrote:Sure we need Sov changes
but
where is the risk for the attacker? this is just an annyoing system that force sov holder to constantly show up to timers just because a random pubby RFed a system just 4 fun
increase the module price up to 100m-500m or let this module only be fitted on caps or increase the timer by 3x-8x Are you high? |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6344
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:58:06 -
[1965] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:After discussing the early feedback with the team here, we've decided to begin this feedback and iteration process with a focus on the time zone mechanics. We're seeing a ton of discussion and quite a bit of displeasure over the time zone mechanics as they are laid out in the blog. So you're going to see us asking a lot of questions in a number of different areas to the players who have opinions on the way we handle time zones in Sov. The goal is to get to the core of the concerns people are expressing about these mechanics, figure out what player needs we are missing in this draft, and see if we can't design a system that meets more of those needs more effectively. I don't expect we're going to make everybody happy, as time zone mechanics are one of the stickiest design issues in a worldwide single shard MMO. However we do think it's likely that your feedback can help get us to a better design than what we have right now.
Compromise: use a dynamic time zone based on login pattern (or maybe the time of activity) of the occupants so that one forms over time. This will give a reason to have due diligence in an organization that crosses time zones. So some would for having put in the work have a longer span than would an organization of "10 guys from Liverpool" who all play for a short while after closing the pub.
It would be natural. When I go trespassing in wormholes, I use the existing tools to get the goods on who is already in there and learn what their time zone is and what their "span" is. It makes the difference of being able to leisurely find my way out or being chased by "20 Russian Tengues" every time I log in.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:58:44 -
[1966] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:No, that's the point. We're not going to provide any content to whatever alliance holds the space. We're going to take their sov with an interceptor fleet because we dictate the battles and they will be unable to catch all of us. Which is essentially almost like Dominion sov where n+1 always wins. You can't dictate a battle when you're all in ships that do <100 dps. Sure you can cyno some caps in to one or two systems at a time, maybe even try moving them through gates to assist in multiple command point fights but when you're dedicating your numbers into essentially useless combat hulls you won't be able to hold a grid to complete your RFs or captures without bringing in reinforcements in far more killable ships. |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:03:11 -
[1967] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:No, that's the point. We're not going to provide any content to whatever alliance holds the space. We're going to take their sov with an interceptor fleet because we dictate the battles and they will be unable to catch all of us. Which is essentially almost like Dominion sov where n+1 always wins. You can't dictate a battle when you're all in ships that do <100 dps. Sure you can cyno some caps in to one or two systems at a time, maybe even try moving them through gates to assist in multiple command point fights but when you're dedicating your numbers into essentially useless combat hulls you won't be able to hold a grid to complete your RFs or captures without bringing in reinforcements in far more killable ships. This is where you are wrong, with an E-Link, dps is only for ship vs ship. They are saying that they will ignore defending ships for the most part and just roll all of the timers in interceptors. Thus, RFing and creating timers, blowing up iHubs, and taking sov. All the while, denying any real engagement since they can just run away to another spot if a real defense is made. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:03:18 -
[1968] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:No, that's the point. We're not going to provide any content to whatever alliance holds the space. We're going to take their sov with an interceptor fleet because we dictate the battles and they will be unable to catch all of us. Which is essentially almost like Dominion sov where n+1 always wins. You can't dictate a battle when you're all in ships that do <100 dps. Sure you can cyno some caps in to one or two systems at a time, maybe even try moving them through gates to assist in multiple command point fights but when you're dedicating your numbers into essentially useless combat hulls you won't be able to hold a grid to complete your RFs or captures without bringing in reinforcements in far more killable ships.
We can torch half of the south in less than an hour with said ships under these changes. We dont even need to fire a shot.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
FlameOfSurvival
Kriegsmarinewerft Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:05:22 -
[1969] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:FlameOfSurvival wrote:Sure we need Sov changes
but
where is the risk for the attacker? this is just an annyoing system that force sov holder to constantly show up to timers just because a random pubby RFed a system just 4 fun
increase the module price up to 100m-500m or let this module only be fitted on caps or increase the timer by 3x-8x Are you high?
a little
but would it be fun if a single person can reinforce your POS or POCO just because he had a noobship and activate a module for 10min? that would be a timer where you have to show up |
Accki
The Scope Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:05:26 -
[1970] - Quote
People that are worried about the T2 Entosis link range of 250km been op.
it sounds like its a targeted module, so whatever ship fits it can only burn around in a bubble of its own target range, not the full 250k bubble
The primetime idea definitely needs a different idea behind it |
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:07:53 -
[1971] - Quote
Accki wrote:People that are worried about the T2 Entosis link range of 250km been op.
it sounds like its a targeted module, so whatever ship fits it can only burn around in a bubble of its own target range, not the full 250k bubble
The primetime idea definitely needs a different idea behind it Sensor boosters... A 100km bubble is plenty big enough to burn around in if you are in an interceptor. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:08:40 -
[1972] - Quote
Accki wrote:People that are worried about the T2 Entosis link range of 250km been op.
it sounds like its a targeted module, so whatever ship fits it can only burn around in a bubble of its own target range, not the full 250k bubble
The primetime idea definitely needs a different idea behind it
120km range on a cepter.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:08:54 -
[1973] - Quote
FlameOfSurvival wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:FlameOfSurvival wrote:Sure we need Sov changes
but
where is the risk for the attacker? this is just an annyoing system that force sov holder to constantly show up to timers just because a random pubby RFed a system just 4 fun
increase the module price up to 100m-500m or let this module only be fitted on caps or increase the timer by 3x-8x Are you high? a little but would it be fun if a single person can reinforce your POS or POCO just because he had a noobship and activate a module for 10min? that would be a timer where you have to show up At the moment, it doesn't look like POS or POCO are controlled by E-Link, still need to grind those. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4233
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:09:22 -
[1974] - Quote
I've been thinking about these blitzing inty fleets. My first though was about all the tools at our disposal to counter such lol-fit ships, for which there are plenty. However, further pondering has brought to mine the underlying problem that is driving this ridiculous scenario:
It comes down to the battle of effort. Sov. war, over the years, has basically evolved into break-their-will campaigns, where you first exhaust your opponent's will to fight long before you successfully take their space. The problem with the proposed scenario isn't so much inty's RF'ing structures, but that the effort to reclaim those structures is pretty heavy.
We can prevent inties and dessies from fitting the entosis link, but we'll still have the same situation. It is very easy for an organization to segregate their fleet into many, many small parts that simultaneously attack the sov of many structures. While many of these individuals will be countered, many more will also succeed. This is true anytime you have an empire expanding more than a constellation. Every successfully RF'd structure then results in a not insignificant effort by the defenders to reclaim the system or lose it.
The disparity is in the effort to RF the structure vs the effort to reclaim it. That is really what needs to be balanced.
Truth be told, if no one shows up, I believe the structures should revert back to the original owners control naturally. Also, I feel like there needs to be an additional step (i.e. an investment in effort) before the attackers truly make sov vulnerable.
Focusing on link fit inties is really sidetracking us from the above discussion, which is something we should be having.
|
Gorgof Intake
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:10:29 -
[1975] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:No, that's the point. We're not going to provide any content to whatever alliance holds the space. We're going to take their sov with an interceptor fleet because we dictate the battles and they will be unable to catch all of us. Which is essentially almost like Dominion sov where n+1 always wins. You can't dictate a battle when you're all in ships that do <100 dps. Sure you can cyno some caps in to one or two systems at a time, maybe even try moving them through gates to assist in multiple command point fights but when you're dedicating your numbers into essentially useless combat hulls you won't be able to hold a grid to complete your RFs or captures without bringing in reinforcements in far more killable ships. We can torch half of the south in less than an hour with said ships under these changes. We dont even need to fire a shot.
Where are you people getting these numbers from? Your arguments are based on a wild assumption someone made on the first page that you could fit this module to a ceptor, of which i can find absolutely none, nada, zip, nothing offical as to what the fitting requirments would be.
After a 100page threadnaught im sure the Devs get it. Fitting these on ceptors will be a bad idea and totally OP. Give Fozzie and Rise and the rest of the Dev team dealing with Sov and ship balancing a little credit.
Some Thoughts on Sov Mechanics
DEADPACKS: Alternative Sov Mechanic
|
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:10:56 -
[1976] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:No, that's the point. We're not going to provide any content to whatever alliance holds the space. We're going to take their sov with an interceptor fleet because we dictate the battles and they will be unable to catch all of us. Which is essentially almost like Dominion sov where n+1 always wins. You can't dictate a battle when you're all in ships that do <100 dps. Sure you can cyno some caps in to one or two systems at a time, maybe even try moving them through gates to assist in multiple command point fights but when you're dedicating your numbers into essentially useless combat hulls you won't be able to hold a grid to complete your RFs or captures without bringing in reinforcements in far more killable ships.
What are you talking about? If we reinforce the entire region we just move 7 jumps to another constallation and voil+á, a bunch of new timers. By the time the 5 minute Entosis cycle is done the hostile fleet might have arrived if they're flying frigates - Which, with 200 people will end quickly. If they're flying anything larger than that they'll never catch up to us before we finish our reinforcement cycles.
They could take a jump bridge, but then next time we move they'll have jump fatigue and won't be able to do it again for +5 minutes.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:12:57 -
[1977] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:What are you talking about? If we reinforce the entire region we just move 7 jumps to another constallation and voil+í and bunch of new timers. By the time the 5 minute Entosis cycle is done the hostile fleet might have arrived if they're flying frigates - Which, with 200 people will end quickly. If they're flying anything larger than that they'll never catch up to us before we finish our reinforcement cycles.
They could take a jump bridge, but then next time we move they'll have jump fatigue and won't be able to do it again for +5 minutes. You realise you then have a 10-40 minute timer depending on indices AFTER the first cycle is finished that you need to keep running your link on that structure for right?
edit: and which can be reversed by a defensive link back to zero if you just run away |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:13:07 -
[1978] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I've been thinking about these blitzing inty fleets. My first though was about all the tools at our disposal to counter such lol-fit ships, for which there are plenty. However, further pondering has brought to mine the underlying problem that is driving this ridiculous scenario:
It comes down to the battle of effort. Sov. war, over the years, has basically evolved into break-their-will campaigns, where you first exhaust your opponent's will to fight long before you successfully take their space. The problem with the proposed scenario isn't so much inty's RF'ing structures, but that the effort to reclaim those structures is pretty heavy.
We can prevent inties and dessies from fitting the entosis link, but we'll still have the same situation. It is very easy for an organization to segregate their fleet into many, many small parts that simultaneously attack the sov of many structures. While many of these individuals will be countered, many more will also succeed. This is true anytime you have an empire expanding more than a constellation. Every successfully RF'd structure then results in a not insignificant effort by the defenders to reclaim the system or lose it.
The disparity is in the effort to RF the structure vs the effort to reclaim it. That is really what needs to be balanced.
Truth be told, if no one shows up, I believe the structures should revert back to the original owners control naturally. Also, I feel like there needs to be an additional step (i.e. an investment in effort) before the attackers truly make sov vulnerable.
Focusing on link fit inties is really sidetracking us from the above discussion, which is something we should be having.
This is exactly it. The interceptor discussion is just one example of how the underlying issues can be abused. It's too easy for a roaming harassment fleet to inflict serious damage to a system, even one that's lived in. |
Saffear Stormrage
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Skeleton Crew.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:13:21 -
[1979] - Quote
I do believe there are some good ideas at work, besides the obvious I have the following questions
Ihub is captured, it explodes - the upgrades I assume explode with it.
New upgrades are only available in hi sec, some quite large requiring freighters and escorts. under the current system if there are no changes to the availability of upgrades does it not favor the large alliances? Or are there changes planned that will make upgrades more accessible by the Capsuleers building them?
Scanning nodes: little unclear - do you need to scan with probes? or does it show up on your dscan like other anomalies?
So there are hints about capitals being rebalanced or having new roles. can we get more info about this before everyone fire sales their Avatar for 300 mil and a can of quafe?
On a final note some things are great just backwards, and the set prime time thing ,,, well that is just lame no other words for it.
Introduce!!! relay nodes! have 5 spread out in a constellation - same proposed mechanics for the nodes - you must find and hack them with the link - after first cycle a warning is sent - if you successfully hack the required number the structure become vulnerable in 24hrs. then mechanics as laid out - this would mean required effort to return, a known time in any timezone, and would greatly reduce the impact of griefing that will happen in the proposed set.
well i'm no expert but that is my idea |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:13:44 -
[1980] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:
Where are you people getting these numbers from? Your arguments are based on a while assumption someone made on the first page that you could fit this module to a ceptor, of which i can find absolutely none, nada, zip, nothing offical as to what the fitting requirments would be.
After a 100page threadnaught im sure the Devs get it. Fitting these on ceptors will be a bad idea and totally OP. Give Fozzie and Rise and the rest of the Dev team dealing with Sov and ship balancing a little credit.
I'm not taking the risk, I will hammer this point relentlessly until they tell us they will not allow frigates to fit these mods.
We need a system that is goon proof because we will abuse any opening.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Jessica Serrato
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:15:04 -
[1981] - Quote
I really do not like a lot of the changes. It seems that CCP is constantly adding in new content for the benefit of newer players while at the same time, nerfing and punishing those that have been playing for a long time. Its been going this way for awhile now and I getting tired of seeing it.
You now have-
Mining Barges that just as good as Exhumers, so there is only a marginally benefit to train into Exhumers.
Daily Roaming Inty gangs that are extremely easy to train into, hard to catch, let alone get rid of as they get to choose when to engage.
New Tech 3 Dessies that are insanely OP for there Hull Type.
High Sec space that is geared to push newer players into Null as content in High Sec space is becoming safer, with no real new content.....maybe burner missions but no huge benefit to run them.
Low Sec space that is majority only used for FW, which is good, but rather see more benefit to occupying that space.
Now you want to make Null Sec space a place where you have Frigate/Inty gangs being the majority of the fights for Sov?
Sov is hard, its suppose to be. I don't agree with the current system, but making it into a laughing stock of "okay during this 4 hours we need 100 Frigates to remove Sov" isn't going to make it fun, its going to make it more of a pain. A game of "okay whoever collects the most nodes the fastest wins". Not to mention ignoring a few of the other unpleasant things in the game that people have been screaming about for years.
I think this is an okay start, but the new changes as is are seriously lacking thought and easily abused by loop-holers. I would prefer to see this held off til a more thought out system has been planned, not a rushed patch fix.
|
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:15:56 -
[1982] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:What are you talking about? If we reinforce the entire region we just move 7 jumps to another constallation and voil+í and bunch of new timers. By the time the 5 minute Entosis cycle is done the hostile fleet might have arrived if they're flying frigates - Which, with 200 people will end quickly. If they're flying anything larger than that they'll never catch up to us before we finish our reinforcement cycles.
They could take a jump bridge, but then next time we move they'll have jump fatigue and won't be able to do it again for +5 minutes. You realise you then have a 10-40 minute timer depending on indices AFTER the first cycle is finished that you need to keep running your link on that structure for right? edit: and which can be reversed by a defensive link back to zero if you just run away
If even a few of those timers are successful, it can disrupt a region and require hours of 'grinding' the command nodes back to the original state. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:17:49 -
[1983] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:What are you talking about? If we reinforce the entire region we just move 7 jumps to another constallation and voil+í and bunch of new timers. By the time the 5 minute Entosis cycle is done the hostile fleet might have arrived if they're flying frigates - Which, with 200 people will end quickly. If they're flying anything larger than that they'll never catch up to us before we finish our reinforcement cycles.
They could take a jump bridge, but then next time we move they'll have jump fatigue and won't be able to do it again for +5 minutes. You realise you then have a 10-40 minute timer depending on indices AFTER the first cycle is finished that you need to keep running your link on that structure for right? edit: and which can be reversed by a defensive link back to zero if you just run away If even a few of those timers are successful, it can disrupt a region and require hours of 'grinding' the command nodes back to the original state. Exactly so who's worse off, the alliance with hundreds of systems and timers to worry about (and manage their fleet distribution and defence over) or the one with just two or three?
Goons know this is gonna bend them over backwards logistically - just one bad day and they then need to deal with potentially hundreds or even thousands of timers to grind down in their own space.
edit: And aside from spy intel, they don't know which one's are gonna escalate and which were just one person trolling them for lols on their own. |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:22:07 -
[1984] - Quote
Jessica Serrato wrote: Sov is hard, its suppose to be. I don't agree with the current system, but making it into a laughing stock of "okay during this 4 hours we need 100 Frigates to remove Sov" isn't going to make it fun, its going to make it more of a pain. A game of "okay whoever collects the most nodes the fastest wins". Not to mention ignoring a few of the other unpleasant things in the game that people have been screaming about for years.
I think this is an okay start, but the new changes as is are seriously lacking thought and easily abused by loop-holers. I would prefer to see this held off til a more thought out system has been planned, not a rushed patch fix.
This is exactly it. The new system has too many obvious loop-holes that we as a community have already figured out. Sov should be earned. It requires a certain amount of grinding.
The new system makes it cost nothing to own 'sov' with a TCU but makes the iHub extremely important, more so than almost anything else. |
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:23:03 -
[1985] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Devi Loches wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:What are you talking about? If we reinforce the entire region we just move 7 jumps to another constallation and voil+í and bunch of new timers. By the time the 5 minute Entosis cycle is done the hostile fleet might have arrived if they're flying frigates - Which, with 200 people will end quickly. If they're flying anything larger than that they'll never catch up to us before we finish our reinforcement cycles.
They could take a jump bridge, but then next time we move they'll have jump fatigue and won't be able to do it again for +5 minutes. You realise you then have a 10-40 minute timer depending on indices AFTER the first cycle is finished that you need to keep running your link on that structure for right? edit: and which can be reversed by a defensive link back to zero if you just run away If even a few of those timers are successful, it can disrupt a region and require hours of 'grinding' the command nodes back to the original state. Exactly so who's worse off, the alliance with hundreds of systems and timers to worry about (and manage their fleet distribution and defence over) or the one with just two or three? Goons know this is gonna bend them over backwards logistically - just one bad day and they then need to deal with potentially hundreds or even thousands of timers to grind down in their own space.
How can you be this jaded with Ggrrgoon? This will hurt everyone in null sec, but GSF the very least as we are one of the only alliances that actually uses our space.
Here you go: http://i.imgur.com/n84nWAH.png
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
56
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:24:32 -
[1986] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes
Stop with the mittani trollceptor.
A single ship with a link is enough to counter your ridiculous wing of trollceptor. |
Devi Loches
Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:25:27 -
[1987] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Devi Loches wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:What are you talking about? If we reinforce the entire region we just move 7 jumps to another constallation and voil+í and bunch of new timers. By the time the 5 minute Entosis cycle is done the hostile fleet might have arrived if they're flying frigates - Which, with 200 people will end quickly. If they're flying anything larger than that they'll never catch up to us before we finish our reinforcement cycles.
They could take a jump bridge, but then next time we move they'll have jump fatigue and won't be able to do it again for +5 minutes. You realise you then have a 10-40 minute timer depending on indices AFTER the first cycle is finished that you need to keep running your link on that structure for right? edit: and which can be reversed by a defensive link back to zero if you just run away If even a few of those timers are successful, it can disrupt a region and require hours of 'grinding' the command nodes back to the original state. Exactly so who's worse off, the alliance with hundreds of systems and timers to worry about (and manage their fleet distribution and defence over) or the one with just two or three? Goons know this is gonna bend them over backwards logistically - just one bad day and they then need to deal with potentially hundreds or even thousands of timers to grind down in their own space. edit: And aside from spy intel, they don't know which one's are gonna escalate.
The small alliances who get swamped by fleets of 200 interceptors and get their iHubs blown up constantly, that's who loses. This does not hurt goons, they don't care if their unused space is burned. It's easy for people to jump in and take sov, but it's also too easy to completely disrupt an active community in a constellation. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15374
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:26:35 -
[1988] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes
Stop with the mittani trollceptor. A single ship with a link is enough to counter your ridiculous wing of trollceptor.
We can dump several hundred of them on you for fun. Several thousand if someone kicks the hive.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:29:46 -
[1989] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Papa Django wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes
Stop with the mittani trollceptor. A single ship with a link is enough to counter your ridiculous wing of trollceptor. We can dump several hundred of them on you for fun. Several thousand if someone kicks the hive.
On a single sov sure, but you cant be everywhere.
Numbers are numbers, if you want to take a specific sov with your armada, i hope you still be able to do it |
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:32:08 -
[1990] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:baltec1 wrote:Papa Django wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes
Stop with the mittani trollceptor. A single ship with a link is enough to counter your ridiculous wing of trollceptor. We can dump several hundred of them on you for fun. Several thousand if someone kicks the hive. On a single sov sure, but you cant be everywhere. Numbers are numbers, if you want to take a specific sov with your armada, i hope you still be able to do it
I think you're underestimating just how fast insta-warp interceptors can go from one system to another. Then imagine 200 of them that can't be tackled except when they use the Entosis Link.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
|
Robertson Nolen
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:33:46 -
[1991] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes
Stop with the mittani trollceptor. A single ship with a link is enough to counter your ridiculous wing of trollceptor.
Except, the intis go after that one ship or bring backup. Then the other side brings backup. Then the one side decides that carrier support can help them destroy the enemy entosis links faster, then the other side brings their carriers then ect. and we are back to square one.
It will become a game of numbers and highsec carebear corps like mine can exploit it as well. We may have no interest in taking sov but if we can entosis your stuff and bait a fight you bet we are going to do it (especially the Ihubs because no one will want to let those be destroyed).
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:34:52 -
[1992] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Papa Django wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes
Stop with the mittani trollceptor. A single ship with a link is enough to counter your ridiculous wing of trollceptor. We can dump several hundred of them on you for fun. Several thousand if someone kicks the hive. I'm going to enjoy murder zoning every last one of your beloved interceptors. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:35:22 -
[1993] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:The small alliances who get swamped by fleets of 200 interceptors and get their iHubs blown up constantly, that's who loses. This does not hurt goons, they don't care if their unused space is burned. It's easy for people to jump in and take sov, but it's also too easy to completely disrupt an active community in a constellation. Why are they going to bother with small alliances when they could be doing it to their main competitors instead? If they don't need the space and it's not a strategic objective?
Sure they'll probably go on a great big rampage across the whole of nullsec at the start and try to flip everything just to throw their weight around and show that the mechanic is broken but ultimately it achieves nothing for them if they're so easily flipped back again once their attention is elsewhere.
Now if their big neighbours who aren't so 4chan memeworthy griefers actually start using it as a strategic way to harrass and subdue the hive then that's where they'll start pouring their own efforts in return.
So yes, you'll occasionally get sand thrown in your face by the playground bully but a week later it'll all be back to normal. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
253
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:35:51 -
[1994] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours.
Wouldn't that mean you'd need to fly a subcap, Mostly? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11987
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:38:41 -
[1995] - Quote
Papa Django wrote: On a single sov sure, but you cant be everywhere.
Are you kidding? Hell's bells, if frigates can fit these things, they will require even less resources and commitment than an afk cloaker, for vastly greater effect.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Bel Tika
Chronological Protection Agency
329
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:42:44 -
[1996] - Quote
Ok first forgive my ignorance but i need to ask some things to understand them.
Doesnt a ship need to link this module an stay "in touch" for it to work? if so, if the defender of the system is there why cant they defend said structure/system? the ship cant be repped, cant warp etc etc so if you are defending your system and actually occupying your system what is the problem? if you have the system but do not do anything with it, again what is the problem?
If a corp has say 30 systems and i (for lack of better knowledge) probe them 30 systems with solo frigs all with Entosis Links and find that said corp cannot hold them 30 systems, what is the problem? if i find the corp can easily defend all systems, what is the problem?
Im missing alot an not understanding much tbh, but if the corporation that holds 30 systems cant in actual fact hold them why should they? if that corp or alliance is better suited at defending 5 systems then should it not? shouldn't the other 25 systems not be freed up for other corps/alliances?
Think i need to go back to my smoke an re-read that blog lol, just trying to understand
|
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:43:28 -
[1997] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Devi Loches wrote:The small alliances who get swamped by fleets of 200 interceptors and get their iHubs blown up constantly, that's who loses. This does not hurt goons, they don't care if their unused space is burned. It's easy for people to jump in and take sov, but it's also too easy to completely disrupt an active community in a constellation. Why are they going to bother with small alliances when they could be doing it to their main competitors instead? If they don't need the space and it's not a strategic objective? Sure they'll probably go on a great big rampage across the whole of nullsec at the start and try to flip everything just to throw their weight around and show that the mechanic is broken but ultimately it achieves nothing for them if they're so easily flipped back again once their attention is elsewhere. Now if their big neighbours who aren't so 4chan memeworthy griefers actually start using it as a strategic way to harrass and subdue the hive then that's where they'll start pouring their own efforts in return. So yes, you'll occasionally get sand thrown in your face by the playground bully but a week later it'll all be back to normal.
Why would 200 inteceptors bother with small alliances? Because why not! Let's make that 20 man alliance lose their systems because we can. You don't realize the extend of this. If an ihub blows up it requires a FREIGHTER to get a new one. Now, imagine these systems are 15 jumps into null sec. Not every alliance has the ISK for a Titan to shortcut those freighters.
And that's just barely scratching the surface. Imagine the alliance storage being trapped in the station making the alliance unable to use their assets for, easily, a week thanks to the set 48 hour timer per reinforcement.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:46:12 -
[1998] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:Why would 200 inteceptors bother with small alliances? Because why not! Let's make that 20 man alliance lose their systems because we can. You don't realize the extend of this. If an ihub blows up it requires a FREIGHTER to get a new one. Now, imagine these systems are 15 jumps into null sec. Not every alliance has the ISK for a Titan to shortcut those freighters. Exactly, why not, just for lols...then you realise that it's not very much lols orbitting something with a laser for 40 minutes and stop doing it. Thanks for confirming. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
254
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:47:07 -
[1999] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:On a single sov sure, but you cant be everywhere.
Yup. Totally. You're completely right.
(Shhh. Nobody tell him.)
|
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:47:12 -
[2000] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:Why would 200 inteceptors bother with small alliances? Because why not! Let's make that 20 man alliance lose their systems because we can. You don't realize the extend of this. If an ihub blows up it requires a FREIGHTER to get a new one. Now, imagine these systems are 15 jumps into null sec. Not every alliance has the ISK for a Titan to shortcut those freighters. Exactly, why not, just for lols...then you realise that it's not very much lols orbitting something with a laser for 40 minutes and running away as soon as a defensive fleet shows up and stop doing it. Thanks for confirming.
For someone as Ggrrgoon as you, you sure do not understand our mentality.
Also you still haven't told me why we are going to be hurt the most from this change, as per my post above.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15375
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:47:42 -
[2001] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Exactly, why not, just for lols...then you realise that it's not very much lols orbitting something with a laser for 40 minutes and running away as soon as a defensive fleet shows up and stop doing it. Thanks for confirming.
We rapecaged an entire system for a week to deadzone it. 40 min is nothing to us.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
254
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:48:13 -
[2002] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Exactly, why not, just for lols...then you realise that it's not very much lols orbitting something with a laser for 40 minutes and running away as soon as a defensive fleet shows up and stop doing it. Thanks for confirming.
It's not?
NOBODY TELL ASHER. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
202
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:48:41 -
[2003] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Exactly, why not, just for lols...then you realise that it's not very much lols orbitting something with a laser for 40 minutes and running away as soon as a defensive fleet shows up and stop doing it. Thanks for confirming.
We rapecaged an entire system for a week to deadzone it. 40 min is nothing to us. What about the other 51 of the year?
And you were talking about doing this across the whole of the south, that's 40 minutes for every structure in the south of the map... |
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
69
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:50:08 -
[2004] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:The sovereignty system Fozzie described in the dev blog he wrote is extremely poorly thought and half baked. CCP should just take it back to the drawing board and rethink. Meanwhile, perhaps they would also do well to review their assumptions about EVE players and how they behave and plan their actions in game. I'm going to write more about what I think are the peripheral causes as to why Fozzie and others are constantly failing later. For now, I'd like to elaborate on what I think is the central cause behind the dev team's shortsightedness.
It might be just that the faulty line of thought on the dev team's part is assuming that these poorly designed changes will result in people fighting more. I think they are expecting that they can really change bloc (and individual player) behavior solely through changing rules and mechanics and avoiding touching risk-reward balance.
They are wrong.
For instance, as Arrendis mentioned before, Encounter Surveillance Systems weren't adopted en masse by null residents. They were supposed to create fights. Because they did not see any serious adoption, not many fights were created through them.
Has any developer ever thought about why they weren't adopted by null residents?
More importantly, why is Fozzie's dev blog containing statistics makes him sound like an apologist, or worse, a distressed middle-level executive trying to defend his design through cooking up his numbers, when his plan obviously failed to achieve the intended objectives? If you look at the number carefully, Fozzie is only able to say 'hurray, my plan is doing okay and null sec pvp-related player deaths increased', because Pandemic Legion got bored and decided to farm HERO coalition. I especially laughed out loud and ended up spilling the Turkish coffee I've been sipping when I saw that Deklein region, the place I live in and the revered Goon homeland, has seen PvP related losses decrease by 20% since Phoebe and Jump Fatigue hit. Fozzie isn't just doing a terrible job at re-imagining sovereignty, he is also doing a terrible job at covering his own back so that he and his plan can look good to his immediate superiors who no doubt track his so called progress.
I have said this before when Greyscale announced plans for Phoebe before and I'll say it again;
No amount of change and skewing of sandbox mechanics towards a theme park setting will result in players fighting and causing destruction just for the sake of doing so. People also will not fight and create destruction just so that Fozzie and CCP are appeased and are able to recite statistics without good analysis.
Holding space in null is currently is not worth much for all the effort and resources it takes. Even with these changes, it will still not be worth it.
EVE players will always collaborate, cooperate to minimize risks, and the instances of fights that they do not want to take.
The structures that make up the large entities cannot and will not be dismantled through the change of game play mechanics. You cannot change human behavior and tendency to socialize, cooperate and collude to further mutual goals through introducing ~bright ideas~ like this.
We need developers that are ruthlessly pragmatic and in possesion of first-hand knowledge and experience of life in nullsec to fix nullsec, not developers moonlighting as bright idea fairies that don't know the game and the mechanics they are working on. It's the second type of developers who always end up with introducing Hail Mary plans that are destined to fail like this one.
The eloquennce of this brought a bitter tear of joy to my jaded eyes. Bravo sir, you are a hero of the motherlamd.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15375
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:50:49 -
[2005] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:
And you were talking about doing this across the whole of the south, that's 40 minutes for every structure in the south of the map...
That we can hit all at once. Under the current plans we could attack all of nullsec in a single weekend.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
254
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:51:18 -
[2006] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Exactly, why not, just for lols...then you realise that it's not very much lols orbitting something with a laser for 40 minutes and running away as soon as a defensive fleet shows up and stop doing it. Thanks for confirming.
We rapecaged an entire system for a week to deadzone it. 40 min is nothing to us. What about the other 51 of the year? And you were talking about doing this across the whole of the south, that's 40 minutes for every structure in the south of the map...
You really have no feel for just how masochistic we are, have you? :) |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
219
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:55:10 -
[2007] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: the inteceptor then shrugs, burns off grid, and hits another node or sov structure, and cannot be stopped if the pilot uses a shred of intellect while burning around a region
you can't bridge around them due to fatigue, you can't warp faster than them, and outside of serious pilot error, they cannot be caught while traveling
stop focusing on the individual fight (especially since you are bad at theorycrafting them)
Again, an empire of APPROPRIATE SIZE will give zero craps about this. Funny that. the problem is that the appropriate size to counter interceptor shenanigans increases by ten for every pilot in the opfor did it occur to you that with our numbers, we can make any defense untenable Like you did with siphons? The same melodrama was used there. And sure, for a while indeed ....then people got bored that is because siphons do practically nothing being able to pop an ihub by using a halitosis module means that you set back the sov index 100 days, wipe out the industrial/military index, and require between one and nine freighters to visit the system, per ihub you pop this is considerably more significant than making 8m isk/hr with a mandatory twice a day login by siphoning a moon
The fact you can't build iHUB upgrades or Outpost upgrades is stupid. Make the BPO's already |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
202
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:55:59 -
[2008] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:You really have no feel for just how masochistic we are, have you? :) Well since you'd rather blue the whole of nullsec than put up with grinding under the current system I don't really think you've got it in you to grind out the whole of the South in smaller 40 minute chunks - at least not over and over again for every week of the year because it keeps getting flipped straight back as soon as you head home again.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1368
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:56:36 -
[2009] - Quote
I must admit to being moderately amused by the folks who think that activating a defensive entosis link somehow prevents the interceptor from causing further harm.
Sure, the interceptor at that particular node gets blocked, but he is free to turn around, burn off grid, then travel to a system 10 jumps away in the time it takes you to disengage your link.
It's not about the individual sov structure or command node; it's about the ability for the interceptor to, when flown by a moderately competent pilot, to choose to disengage at will should the situation become untenable, and to begin poking another sov structure outside of the reach of any ship but another interceptor.
They feel no pity, no remorse, and no fear, and cannot be stopped. Even the Terminator wasn't so lucky.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:56:42 -
[2010] - Quote
How are alliances to establish empires??
CULTURE towers set in up to 5 key constellations that radiate the alliance's influence like the Sansha do.
In surrounding constellations there are smaller bonuses and penalties. TCU's and SBU's become relays and disruptors, respectively. Most of the 'culture' penalties aren't going to affect ships -just the ability to attempt to conquer. The various system indices could be affected by culture signal. TCU's spread your influence, SBU's counter your influence until so low that capitals can some in and smack down TCU's.
harassing alliances vs conquering territory should be very different things. Having 200 ceptors affect the established alliance's hold -idiotic, but they should be able to reduce some of your indices for 2-3 days.
An Interceptor class "WCS" in the lows should be required for ceptors to avoid bubbles or they get caught in them. Not a bad idea for both types of T2 haulers either. |
|
Emma Yassavi
Lonestar Distribution Inc. Waterboard Comedy Tour
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:57:43 -
[2011] - Quote
This may have been suggested already, but would it be possible to allow large alliances with good TZ-diversification to increase the amount of time their structures are vulnerable in exchange for increased benefits from those buildings? (say, a base of 20% bonus for the base 4 hours of vulnerability, with an additional 5% bonus for each hour of vulnerability per day)
It seems like it would potentially play well into giving people a trade-off between risk and reward. Also, it would allow the alliances that already have TZ-diversification a reason to keep those alliances together, though with potentially much greater risk. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1368
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:58:17 -
[2012] - Quote
CCP -- I would strongly advise you to prioritize the Entosis Link's precise fitting ahead of all other discussion topics. So much of the conversation relies on which ships can field the Sov Laser. Not making a swift, firm decision on this matter threatens to make any other possible feedback meaningless.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
202
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:58:54 -
[2013] - Quote
Querns wrote:I must admit to being moderately amused by the folks who think that activating a defensive entosis link somehow prevents the interceptor from causing further harm.
Sure, the interceptor at that particular node gets blocked, but he is free to turn around, burn off grid, then travel to a system 10 jumps away in the time it takes you to disengage your link.
It's not about the individual sov structure or command node; it's about the ability for the interceptor to, when flown by a moderately competent pilot, to choose to disengage at will should the situation become untenable, and to begin poking another sov structure outside of the reach of any ship but another interceptor.
They feel no pity, no remorse, and no pain, and cannot be stopped. Even the Terminator wasn't so lucky. Not every alliance is sprawled across such large areas that an interceptor jumping 10 systems away is still their problem. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1368
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:00:44 -
[2014] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:I must admit to being moderately amused by the folks who think that activating a defensive entosis link somehow prevents the interceptor from causing further harm.
Sure, the interceptor at that particular node gets blocked, but he is free to turn around, burn off grid, then travel to a system 10 jumps away in the time it takes you to disengage your link.
It's not about the individual sov structure or command node; it's about the ability for the interceptor to, when flown by a moderately competent pilot, to choose to disengage at will should the situation become untenable, and to begin poking another sov structure outside of the reach of any ship but another interceptor.
They feel no pity, no remorse, and no pain, and cannot be stopped. Even the Terminator wasn't so lucky. Not every alliance is sprawled across such large areas that an interceptor jumping 10 systems away is still their problem. Most individual regions consist of systems covering more than ten jumps.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:04:45 -
[2015] - Quote
Robertson Nolen wrote:Papa Django wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes
Stop with the mittani trollceptor. A single ship with a link is enough to counter your ridiculous wing of trollceptor. Except, the intis go after that one ship or bring backup. Then the other side brings backup. Then the one side decides that carrier support can help them destroy the enemy entosis links faster, then the other side brings their carriers then ect. and we are back to square one. It will become a game of numbers and highsec carebear corps like mine can exploit it as well. We may have no interest in taking sov but if we can entosis your stuff and bait a fight you bet we are going to do it (especially the Ihubs because no one will want to let those be destroyed).
And this exactly why this system is great and designed to : The sov holders have to undock to defend their sov.
And because they cannot defend everything, they have to mix between large expansion with poor locally defenses, or small expansion with good defenses.
And it will free space for others groups and create localized conflicts.
It will still a number game if the attacker have the numbers and want to put efforts on a specific system, or a specific list of systems. But the forces in system A will not be in system B.
So it will keep cap fight and large battle that escalate for specific fights and really strategic systems and open a large room for localized conflicts.
Everyone should be happy. Huge entities like goons keep their landlords status and can terrorize their neighboors, but it open room for smaller group, it give opportunities for roaming gang to impact significantly sov warfare, etc ... It allow for small / med sized entities to hold sov by concentrate defense or offensive moves on their main TZ.
All good and very well designed.
The only thing is the 2 days RF duration. One day could be great with RF started on friday night and battle event for sov on saturday night / sunday morning.
And you have your week to protect your sov on your main TZ.
Could be really great like this !
The system is re |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
202
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:05:48 -
[2016] - Quote
Querns wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:I must admit to being moderately amused by the folks who think that activating a defensive entosis link somehow prevents the interceptor from causing further harm.
Sure, the interceptor at that particular node gets blocked, but he is free to turn around, burn off grid, then travel to a system 10 jumps away in the time it takes you to disengage your link.
It's not about the individual sov structure or command node; it's about the ability for the interceptor to, when flown by a moderately competent pilot, to choose to disengage at will should the situation become untenable, and to begin poking another sov structure outside of the reach of any ship but another interceptor.
They feel no pity, no remorse, and no pain, and cannot be stopped. Even the Terminator wasn't so lucky. Not every alliance is sprawled across such large areas that an interceptor jumping 10 systems away is still their problem. Most individual regions consist of systems covering more than ten jumps. And not all alliances control a whole region |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1375
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:08:45 -
[2017] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Not every alliance is sprawled across such large areas that an interceptor jumping 10 systems away is still their problem. Most individual regions consist of systems covering more than ten jumps. And not all alliances control a whole region Confirmed -- for example, Goonswarm Federation does not control the whole of Deklein.
My point yet remains.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:11:00 -
[2018] - Quote
Querns wrote:Confirmed -- for example, Goonswarm Federation does not control the whole of Deklein.
My point yet remains. It remains yet it's invalidated by the fact that some alliances have fewer than 10 systems under their control, let alone 10 in a row that would necessitate them worrying about an interceptor taking 10 jumps in anything other than a circular fashion.
edit: technically that would require eleven systems anyways but round numbers sounded nicer |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1375
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:12:10 -
[2019] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote: Confirmed -- for example, Goonswarm Federation does not control the whole of Deklein.
My point yet remains.
It remains yet it's invalidated by the fact that some alliances have fewer than 10 systems under their control, let alone 10 in a row that would necessitate them worrying about an interceptor taking ten jumps in anything other than a circular fashion. The fact that you think alliances at that scale of sov havership are the only valid ones is immaterial to the greater discussion.
e: fixing quotes
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30760
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:14:33 -
[2020] - Quote
I'm scared. I need to make sure I remember to pay my membership dues on time. I almost got kicked last month.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:15:06 -
[2021] - Quote
Querns wrote:The fact that you think alliances at that scale of sov havership are the only valid ones is immaterial to the greater discussion.
e: fixing quotes I think alliances at all scales matter, not just the bloated ones that will have to shrink to prevent said interceptor being an issue ten jumps away because of the dilution of their defensive forces with the current status quo. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1379
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:17:26 -
[2022] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:The fact that you think alliances at that scale of sov havership are the only valid ones is immaterial to the greater discussion.
e: fixing quotes I think alliances at all scales matter, not just the bloated ones that will have to shrink to prevent said interceptor being an issue ten jumps away because of the dilution of their defensive forces with the current status quo. This is a very strange conclusion to draw from the current discussion. The current discussion is about the interceptor's inability to be countered in a meaningful fashion, not the size of an empire. The size of an empire is immaterial to this as well; the interceptor simply cannot be caught in any but the most contrived scenarios.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:23:24 -
[2023] - Quote
Querns wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:The fact that you think alliances at that scale of sov havership are the only valid ones is immaterial to the greater discussion.
e: fixing quotes I think alliances at all scales matter, not just the bloated ones that will have to shrink to prevent said interceptor being an issue ten jumps away because of the dilution of their defensive forces with the current status quo. This is a very strange conclusion to draw from the current discussion. The current discussion is about the interceptor's inability to be countered in a meaningful fashion, not the size of an empire. The size of an empire is immaterial to this as well; the interceptor simply cannot be caught in any but the most contrived scenarios.
You are wrong.
20 or 50 interceptors can be countered easily by any med sized alliance.
Obviously 300 interceptors or 1K cannot by med sized alliance like 300 or 1K BS or 50 super. But the numbers you put in a system are not in another one.
That's the point. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
205
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:24:24 -
[2024] - Quote
Querns wrote:This is a very strange conclusion to draw from the current discussion. The current discussion is about the interceptor's inability to be countered in a meaningful fashion, not the size of an empire. The size of an empire is immaterial to this as well; the interceptor simply cannot be caught in any but the most contrived scenarios. It's very pertinent when you say that a skirmisher might come and harass someone and then be able to be ten jumps away before they can react - when a small alliance doesn't care about that skirmisher as soon as it leaves their area of operations.
It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled.
Now a large alliance which is sprawled across the map may well still have this skirmisher within their borders and necessitate them chasing it around and around for the whole of their primetime because they don't have enough standing members to deal with it where it comes to rest each time.
Is that clearer for you?
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1380
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:25:55 -
[2025] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Querns wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:The fact that you think alliances at that scale of sov havership are the only valid ones is immaterial to the greater discussion.
e: fixing quotes I think alliances at all scales matter, not just the bloated ones that will have to shrink to prevent said interceptor being an issue ten jumps away because of the dilution of their defensive forces with the current status quo. This is a very strange conclusion to draw from the current discussion. The current discussion is about the interceptor's inability to be countered in a meaningful fashion, not the size of an empire. The size of an empire is immaterial to this as well; the interceptor simply cannot be caught in any but the most contrived scenarios. You are wrong. 20 or 50 interceptors can be countered easily by any med sized alliance. Obviously 300 interceptors or 1K cannot by med sized alliance like 300 or 1K BS or 50 super. But the numbers you put in a system are not in another one. That's the point. Countered, temporarily, but not caught. Not stopped. The sov system as proposed works only if the attacking force can conceivably be destroyed and deterred.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
256
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:26:55 -
[2026] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled.
Until he comes back in 5m. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
205
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:28:45 -
[2027] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled.
Until he comes back in 5m. And being a small alliance with a small area of operations, they're all still perfectly within range to come and deter him again...
Picture a wasp in a tiny one bedroom flat.
Now picture it in the Louvre.
That's the difference. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1380
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:29:09 -
[2028] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:This is a very strange conclusion to draw from the current discussion. The current discussion is about the interceptor's inability to be countered in a meaningful fashion, not the size of an empire. The size of an empire is immaterial to this as well; the interceptor simply cannot be caught in any but the most contrived scenarios. It's very pertinent when you say that a skirmisher might come and harass someone and then be able to be ten jumps away before they can react - when a small alliance doesn't care about that skirmisher as soon as it leaves their area of operations. It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled. Now a large alliance which is sprawled across the map may well still have this skirmisher within their borders and necessitate them chasing it around and around for the whole of their primetime because they don't have enough standing members to deal with it where it comes to rest each time. Is that clearer for you? Don't focus so hard on the "ten jumps" number. Trying to paint a narrow vignette and extrapolate it to the whole of the experience of Eve is facile. The number was chosen to describe the speed and disengagement prowess of the interceptor, not the exact path in which it needs travel.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15378
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:30:13 -
[2029] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled.
Until he comes back in 5m. And being a small alliance with a small area of operations, they're all still perfectly within range to come and deter him again... Picture a wasp in a tiny one bedroom flat. Now picture it in the Louvre. That's the difference.
Now picture a garden after you knocked over a beehive.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1380
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:32:53 -
[2030] - Quote
Believe it or not, when I describe the interceptor's potential prowess in the new system, I'm not using it as a shield to protect I and mine's way of life. Believe me when I say that Goonswarm Federation's ability to optimize any game system precludes any fantasies you might have about our future. After all, they do listen to me. I am careful to avoid this, as it's way too easy to tear down and be used against me.
Think of what I say in more apolitical terms. Having an agenda simply isn't necessary when my point doesn't require it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
256
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:33:30 -
[2031] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled.
Until he comes back in 5m. And being a small alliance with a small area of operations, they're all still perfectly within range to come and deter him again... Picture a wasp in a tiny one bedroom flat. Now picture it in the Louvre. That's the difference.
No no, that's a perfect analogy - except the wasp doesn't care about who you are, they're trying to annoy anyone they encounter.
So the wasp zips in, stings Small Alliance #1, then zips off 4 systems away (because 10 is, you know, only for huge, sprawling empires... and the Louvre, oddly) and pisses off Small Alliance #2. Then runs another 4j, pisses off Small Alliance #3. Then he zips back into SA1's territory, where they've had time to be aware of him, and there's a bunch of guys ready to kill him.
So he runs back into SA2's space, dragging Gang SA1 behind him.
And as soon as SA1 and SA2 are actually shooting one another, he goes back to hit those SA1 structures again.
All of this is possible because a fast-align interceptor w/a competent pilot is just about impossible to stop. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
691
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:33:37 -
[2032] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote: We would burn null to the ground.
You've been trying to burn null for years. It hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen after this.
You're acting like the kid who feels like a big man because his mommy said he's special.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Roofdog2
Penn Industries
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:34:45 -
[2033] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled.
Until he comes back in 5m. And being a small alliance with a small area of operations, they're all still perfectly within range to come and deter him again... Picture a wasp in a tiny one bedroom flat. Now picture it in the Louvre. That's the difference. Now picture a garden after you knocked over a beehive.
now picture a nuke blowing up the garden
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6551
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:34:58 -
[2034] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled. Until he comes back in 5m. And being a small alliance with a small area of operations, they're all still perfectly within range to come and deter him again... Picture a wasp in a tiny one bedroom flat. Now picture it in the Louvre. That's the difference. Now picture a garden after you knocked over a beehive. Now why did you bring up bees...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
256
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:35:43 -
[2035] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote: We would burn null to the ground.
You've been trying to burn null for years.
We have? Holy Carp, did someone forget to tell Blawrf?
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
209
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:36:16 -
[2036] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled.
Until he comes back in 5m. And being a small alliance with a small area of operations, they're all still perfectly within range to come and deter him again... Picture a wasp in a tiny one bedroom flat. Now picture it in the Louvre. That's the difference. Now picture a garden after you knocked over a beehive. Very droll.
Now picture it a week later, a few dead bugs but much the same as it was before because the bees went back to their hIve to farm honey. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6551
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:36:25 -
[2037] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote: We would burn null to the ground.
You've been trying to burn null for years. It hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen after this. You're acting like the kid who feels like a big man because his mommy said he's special. Only because we hadn't been handed the tools to really make it easy.
But hey, wait and see is always an option I guess. I'm sure CCP will not be fooled and will just ram it all through.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
691
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:36:35 -
[2038] - Quote
Geddon Kabaal wrote:Please CCP make sure to avoid the TrollCeptor
I agree something stupid like this will happen:
Canaris:
Reactor Control Unit II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Entosis link thing
Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router I
or
Trolletto
Capacitor Power Relay II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
1MN Microwarpdrive II Sensor Booster II Sensor Booster II Sensor Booster II (120km locking Range)
Entosis link Thing 250km
Small Auxillary Thruster II Snall Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II
10mn variant will be close enough to the structure I can web and kill it with a RLML Rapier. 1mn variant will be far enough away I can blap it with a Muninn or Eagle.
What's the problem here, defenders get to collect 100m killmails.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6551
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:37:16 -
[2039] - Quote
I'm glad everyone is focusing on the killmails here.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1381
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:37:29 -
[2040] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote: We would burn null to the ground.
You've been trying to burn null for years. It hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen after this. You're acting like the kid who feels like a big man because his mommy said he's special. We haven't done it because it's too much work in Dominion sov, and doing so would place us at considerable risk due to our Cold War metaphor supercaps being out of position to counter any threats.
Having a conquering force consist of a scant 250 maledictions, loosed upon a region like a plague of locusts, removes this risk completely. At that rate, I can personally finance the destruction of all conquerable nullsec easily, and I'm one of the poorest members of the Goonswarm Federation Economic Cabal.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Roofdog2
Penn Industries
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:39:01 -
[2041] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled.
Until he comes back in 5m. And being a small alliance with a small area of operations, they're all still perfectly within range to come and deter him again... Picture a wasp in a tiny one bedroom flat. Now picture it in the Louvre. That's the difference. Now picture a garden after you knocked over a beehive.
and now picture a racoon in a yellow dress trying to sick a fish in the beehive
(no idea why, but i wonder how many ppl invisioned it) |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6345
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:44:09 -
[2042] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Papa Django wrote: On a single sov sure, but you cant be everywhere.
Are you kidding? Hell's bells, if frigates can fit these things, they will require even less resources and commitment than an afk cloaker, for vastly greater effect.
I thought AFK cloakers were incapable doing anything.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
257
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:44:28 -
[2043] - Quote
Roofdog2 wrote:and now picture a racoon in a yellow dress trying to sick a fish in the beehive
(no idea why, but i wonder how many ppl invisioned it)
Legit. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4233
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:45:14 -
[2044] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I've been thinking about these blitzing inty fleets. My first though was about all the tools at our disposal to counter such lol-fit ships, for which there are plenty. However, further pondering has brought to mine the underlying problem that is driving this ridiculous scenario:
It comes down to the battle of effort. Sov. war, over the years, has basically evolved into break-their-will campaigns, where you first exhaust your opponent's will to fight long before you successfully take their space. The problem with the proposed scenario isn't so much inty's RF'ing structures, but that the effort to reclaim those structures is pretty heavy.
We can prevent inties and dessies from fitting the entosis link, but we'll still have the same situation. It is very easy for an organization to segregate their fleet into many, many small parts that simultaneously attack the sov of many structures. While many of these individuals will be countered, many more will also succeed. This is true anytime you have an empire expanding more than a constellation. Every successfully RF'd structure then results in a not insignificant effort by the defenders to reclaim the system or lose it.
The disparity is in the effort to RF the structure vs the effort to reclaim it. That is really what needs to be balanced.
Truth be told, if no one shows up, I believe the structures should revert back to the original owners control naturally. Also, I feel like there needs to be an additional step (i.e. an investment in effort) before the attackers truly make sov vulnerable.
Focusing on link fit inties is really sidetracking us from the above discussion, which is something we should be having.
This is exactly it. The interceptor discussion is just one example of how the underlying issues can be abused. It's too easy for a roaming harassment fleet to inflict serious damage to a system, even one that's lived in.
It is easy to miss the forest, when people keep focusing on the trees. No one should be posting lol-interceptor fits, and should instead be posting the imbalance in the efforts between attacking sov and defending sov.
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1040
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:46:16 -
[2045] - Quote
Querns wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote: We would burn null to the ground.
You've been trying to burn null for years. It hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen after this. You're acting like the kid who feels like a big man because his mommy said he's special. We haven't done it because it's too much work in Dominion sov, and doing so would place us at considerable risk due to our Cold War metaphor supercaps being out of position to counter any threats. Having a conquering force consist of a scant 250 maledictions, loosed upon a region like a plague of locusts, removes this risk completely. At that rate, I can personally finance the destruction of all conquerable nullsec easily, and I'm one of the poorest members of the Goonswarm Federation Economic Cabal.
And you think you're the only person/alliance with that kind of money? That's cute
Get off your high horse mate. Before you fall and hurt yourself.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
765
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:46:30 -
[2046] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled.
Until he comes back in 5m. And being a small alliance with a small area of operations, they're all still perfectly within range to come and deter him again... Picture a wasp in a tiny one bedroom flat. Now picture it in the Louvre. That's the difference. Now picture a garden after you knocked over a beehive.
I'm kinda going with a cage full of monkeys with diarrhea flinging crap around. None of them are really sure why they are doing it but it smells different and makes a nice mess to roll around in. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11987
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:49:08 -
[2047] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Papa Django wrote: On a single sov sure, but you cant be everywhere.
Are you kidding? Hell's bells, if frigates can fit these things, they will require even less resources and commitment than an afk cloaker, for vastly greater effect. I thought AFK cloakers were incapable doing anything.
You're right.
This can actually do something besides give renters the badfeelz.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1381
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:49:44 -
[2048] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Querns wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote: We would burn null to the ground.
You've been trying to burn null for years. It hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen after this. You're acting like the kid who feels like a big man because his mommy said he's special. We haven't done it because it's too much work in Dominion sov, and doing so would place us at considerable risk due to our Cold War metaphor supercaps being out of position to counter any threats. Having a conquering force consist of a scant 250 maledictions, loosed upon a region like a plague of locusts, removes this risk completely. At that rate, I can personally finance the destruction of all conquerable nullsec easily, and I'm one of the poorest members of the Goonswarm Federation Economic Cabal. And you think you're the only person/alliance with that kind of money? That's cute Get off your high horse mate. Before you fall and hurt yourself. Considering that I described myself as among the poorest of the Cabal, I fail to see where I asserted any of that.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5765
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:51:17 -
[2049] - Quote
Myriad Blaze wrote:Quote:and the Industrial Index is obtained by mining in the system. So considering the new importance of maxing defense bonuses from occupancy, how is mining for a high industrial index better than grinding structures? If I wanted to shoot rocks, I could have stayed in high-sec. At least tie the industrial index to industry maybe? Probably in the form of building/producing stuff? Maybe even consider planetary industry.
Yes to all those options! Though someone is no doibt glong to game the system by running hundreds of jons to build stuff, then reprocess it and build more stuff, just to keep the index high.
One option is, of course, to recruit miners. You know, those people you laugh at and like to throw stones at in hisec.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30761
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:51:24 -
[2050] - Quote
Fozzie, will effective tossing require corp roles?
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6552
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:51:25 -
[2051] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Querns wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote: We would burn null to the ground.
You've been trying to burn null for years. It hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen after this. You're acting like the kid who feels like a big man because his mommy said he's special. We haven't done it because it's too much work in Dominion sov, and doing so would place us at considerable risk due to our Cold War metaphor supercaps being out of position to counter any threats. Having a conquering force consist of a scant 250 maledictions, loosed upon a region like a plague of locusts, removes this risk completely. At that rate, I can personally finance the destruction of all conquerable nullsec easily, and I'm one of the poorest members of the Goonswarm Federation Economic Cabal. And you think you're the only person/alliance with that kind of money? That's cute Get off your high horse mate. Before you fall and hurt yourself. More like massadeath of moa will drag us off the horse and end us, right?
I know, we all have our little large* fantasies.
*It's a reference to blue donuts making one fat
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6345
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:52:00 -
[2052] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Papa Django wrote: On a single sov sure, but you cant be everywhere.
Are you kidding? Hell's bells, if frigates can fit these things, they will require even less resources and commitment than an afk cloaker, for vastly greater effect. I thought AFK cloakers were incapable doing anything. You're right. This can actually do something besides give renters the badfeelz.
Considering the stagnation of the game that may well be the much needed effect.
It's time they HTFU.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6552
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:53:19 -
[2053] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Myriad Blaze wrote:Quote:and the Industrial Index is obtained by mining in the system. So considering the new importance of maxing defense bonuses from occupancy, how is mining for a high industrial index better than grinding structures? If I wanted to shoot rocks, I could have stayed in high-sec. At least tie the industrial index to industry maybe? Probably in the form of building/producing stuff? Maybe even consider planetary industry. Yes to all those options! Though someone is no doibt glong to game the system by running hundreds of jons to build stuff, then reprocess it and build more stuff, just to keep the index high. One option is, of course, to recruit miners. You know, those people you laugh at and like to throw stones at in hisec. Defense is not the way to go here. Well I guess the miners can all use procurers and defend the control nodes but... well they're not the highsec miners you're looking for, are they
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30761
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:54:24 -
[2054] - Quote
...trying to figure out if I can somehow mitigate my 200m ISK per character per month membership fee, as a tosser.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6552
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:54:31 -
[2055] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Papa Django wrote: On a single sov sure, but you cant be everywhere.
Are you kidding? Hell's bells, if frigates can fit these things, they will require even less resources and commitment than an afk cloaker, for vastly greater effect. I thought AFK cloakers were incapable doing anything. You're right. This can actually do something besides give renters the badfeelz. Considering the stagnation of the game that may well be the much needed effect. It's time they HTFU. Yeah like with jump fatigue, it really shook things up.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
691
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:54:53 -
[2056] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.
The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.
Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.
The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.
Gelvon, when have you ever ground stations in a drake?
Counter-lasering a structure is vastly superior to HP grinds because there's no longer an inherent number advantage, number requirement, nor supercapital mandate just to play the game.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6553
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:56:30 -
[2057] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.
The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.
Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.
The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.
Gelvon, when have you ever ground stations in a drake? Counter-lasering a structure is vastly superior to HP grinds because there's no longer an inherent number advantage, number requirement, nor supercapital mandate just to play the game. Plus, go the limit please.
Ishtars and other drone-type ships (and of course laser ones) don't reload.
(Of course I do also like the bombless bomber that was supposed to end us, but heh)
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:01:12 -
[2058] - Quote
I bet ccp are comparing post density and speed to other mega threads to statistically come to a conclusion that has little to do with anything posted here. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6553
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:01:30 -
[2059] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:...trying to figure out if I can somehow mitigate my 200m ISK per character per month membership fee, as a tosser. You can if you work hard and aspire to spaceriches.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Optimist Bob
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:05:23 -
[2060] - Quote
Might I respectfully suggest that CCP consider one small change. That rather than reinforcing with an Entosis module incrementally, an attacker must have his Entosis module on the sovereignty unit being attacked for the full timer. Thus, any form of LOL reinforcing may be reverse trolled by simply waiting until the timer has nearly expired before decloaking a Falcon, jamming the aggressor and resetting the entire process. Thus, an attacker must be committed to the conquest, or run the risk of being trolled himself.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6553
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:09:33 -
[2061] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Roofdog2 wrote:and now picture a racoon in a yellow dress trying to sick a fish in the beehive
(no idea why, but i wonder how many ppl invisioned it) Legit. Are you sure that it is a yellow dress and not some other color...
There may be more than one possible SKIN involved. (I know amarr is yellow... or golden but the lighting...)
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:12:10 -
[2062] - Quote
Optimist Bob wrote:Might I respectfully suggest that CCP consider one small change. That rather than reinforcing with an Entosis module incrementally, an attacker must have his Entosis module on the sovereignty unit being attacked for the full timer. Thus, any form of LOL reinforcing may be reverse trolled by simply waiting until the timer has nearly expired before decloaking a Falcon, jamming the aggressor and resetting the entire process. Thus, an attacker must be committed to the conquest, or run the risk of being trolled himself.
Maybe too harsh to have it fully reset each time but also it backs up my prior suggestion for marauders to be the uber entosis ships with ewar immunity but no time penalty :) |
win189
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:13:17 -
[2063] - Quote
Well it seems CCp did another lets go have a party at the local pub and head back to work to make ideas for Sov as we keep holding back all info or train of thought cause were going to think of this in 1 hour or less
ill put this Simple and in a brief overview
Link idea Good
making link easy to obtain and were any one that paid for a 1 month subscription can trol 3 systems (very bad) (possible fix Science 5 infomorph 2 for t1 5 for t2 and that it can only be fitted on a t2 or t3)
Timers are far to short even when grinding sov it can take hours less supers on field
Link should use Something Like Stront to work which would encourage more team work and not just one person cloaky camping a system tell no one is inside and then start working a timer
Also any ship with the link can not cloak or has a cool down timer before the ship can cloak
Station services should not be vulnerable unless the tcu is past its first timer as people would just go around trolling people all day and despite your bot policy there are many bots still roaming i can see this just being something put on a bot
any system with 5 5 5 for the indexes should be exempt from any kind of Sov fees seeing that would give this a benefit
The moment the Module is activated it can not be deactivated tell its full cycle is complete preventing cloak the ship can not fly out side the Range of the module during that time and the moment its started alliance is notified and the cycle will last a minimum 15 min and if used on a cap its min should be 14 for t1 13 min for t2
also if home team uses 2 modules and attackers use 1 module the attack should be reversed as long as the 2 modules are still active tell the cycle ends up to a max of 5 total links making it a race to who gets the most links on the object (example away puts 1 link on defenders put on 1 which opens 3 additional possible links which will be first come first serve team with the most links on after the last ships cycle wins that fight
any system with no station takes no less then 30 min for reinforce regardless of level of system
link on a Stargate can have a chance to temporarily interrupt travel
further more with this taking place it basicly makes Capitals useless you first limit peoples movement and then make it hard to defend
i want my carrier to jump further
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
693
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:14:45 -
[2064] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote: I'm confident that we've got enough manpower to give "zero craps" about this, and that if anything, we're actually trying to point out an actual problem which'll affect other, smaller groups than us to a much greater degree.
But that'd be ludicrous, right? Because grrgoons.
Over 9 regions? Best of luck with that. I found a WH to Branch once about a month ago, made it 10 systems (and made over 100m in exploration loot) before I saw another player. And he wasn't even CFC.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
693
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:21:29 -
[2065] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours.
You know, I remember this kind of rhetoric before. When the mobile siphon units were announced Goons swarmed (no pun intented) the thread with comments about how their siphons would blot out the sun, how they would siphon every moon in EVE.
And it never happened.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3197
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:22:17 -
[2066] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I've been thinking about these blitzing inty fleets. My first though was about all the tools at our disposal to counter such lol-fit ships, for which there are plenty. However, further pondering has brought to mine the underlying problem that is driving this ridiculous scenario:
It comes down to the battle of effort. Sov. war, over the years, has basically evolved into break-their-will campaigns, where you first exhaust your opponent's will to fight long before you successfully take their space. The problem with the proposed scenario isn't so much inty's RF'ing structures, but that the effort to reclaim those structures is pretty heavy.
We can prevent inties and dessies from fitting the entosis link, but we'll still have the same situation. It is very easy for an organization to segregate their fleet into many, many small parts that simultaneously attack the sov of many structures. While many of these individuals will be countered, many more will also succeed. This is true anytime you have an empire expanding more than a constellation. Every successfully RF'd structure then results in a not insignificant effort by the defenders to reclaim the system or lose it.
The disparity is in the effort to RF the structure vs the effort to reclaim it. That is really what needs to be balanced.
Truth be told, if no one shows up, I believe the structures should revert back to the original owners control naturally. Also, I feel like there needs to be an additional step (i.e. an investment in effort) before the attackers truly make sov vulnerable.
Focusing on link fit inties is really sidetracking us from the above discussion, which is something we should be having.
you can only troll an alliance if it overextended and owns a lot of space. If you don't own more than you can defend the problem doesn't exist. We already have the same situation in FW. Nobody trolls someone in their home system since it doesn't work. but backend system nobody really cares about are flipped all the time. I think nullsec might be very similar after the change. You will only want to hold as much sov as you can defend... for your own sanity.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
693
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:23:57 -
[2067] - Quote
Querns wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:I must admit to being moderately amused by the folks who think that activating a defensive entosis link somehow prevents the interceptor from causing further harm.
Sure, the interceptor at that particular node gets blocked, but he is free to turn around, burn off grid, then travel to a system 10 jumps away in the time it takes you to disengage your link.
It's not about the individual sov structure or command node; it's about the ability for the interceptor to, when flown by a moderately competent pilot, to choose to disengage at will should the situation become untenable, and to begin poking another sov structure outside of the reach of any ship but another interceptor.
They feel no pity, no remorse, and no pain, and cannot be stopped. Even the Terminator wasn't so lucky. Not every alliance is sprawled across such large areas that an interceptor jumping 10 systems away is still their problem. Most individual regions consist of systems covering more than ten jumps.
This assumes we own systems 10j away. We're not all Goonswarm Federation, with our record bot numbers (Deklein had the highest bot bans at fanfest either last year or the year before that), we don't all "need" a whole region to live in.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11987
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:27:24 -
[2068] - Quote
Bienator II wrote: you can only troll an alliance if it overextended and owns a lot of space. If you don't own more than you can defend the problem doesn't exist.
The way the income is structured, people have to spread themselves thin.
This must be accompanied by a nullsec income rework.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6553
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:29:49 -
[2069] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:[quote=Bienator II] you can only troll an alliance if it overextended and owns a lot of space. If you don't own more than you can defend the problem doesn't exist.
The way the income is structured, people have to spread themselves thin.
This must be accompanied by a nullsec income rework. No it doesn't.
Just ram this through and let what happens happen
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:30:05 -
[2070] - Quote
Querns wrote:It's not about the individual sov structure or command node; it's about the ability for the interceptor to, when flown by a moderately competent pilot, to choose to disengage at will should the situation become untenable, and to begin poking another sov structure outside of the reach of any ship but another interceptor.
NO STRUCTURE will be outside of reach of a defensive E-link for the people actually LIVING THERE. Sov in empty/far-flung systems will be immediately lost. Sov in or very close to every system housing live pilots during that alliance's prime time will be invulnerable to this sneaky interceptor genius.
The small alliance holding 3 or 4 systems with 30 or 50 people online doesn't care where the interceptor goes or what it E-links once it leaves their borders. It won't be hard for them to field a couple of defensive E-links within a 2 or 3 jump radius during a 4 hour window that completely negates anything the interceptor can do within their borders.
(To be fair, the LARGE alliance holding 300 or 400 systems with 3000 or 5000 people online, in-space, and spread out between all these systems ALSO won't care. Alliance size isn't relevant; having living, online pilots in the systems you own, few or many, is all that matters).
Again, all this intentional. Space that is being lived in will be trivial to defend against this kind of harassment. Space that isn't being lived in won't be. That's the basis of the mechanic. |
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
288
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:34:50 -
[2071] - Quote
What's CCP's position on dealing with "Trollettos"?
http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor?page=0%2C1
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
562
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:35:56 -
[2072] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Querns wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:I must admit to being moderately amused by the folks who think that activating a defensive entosis link somehow prevents the interceptor from causing further harm.
Sure, the interceptor at that particular node gets blocked, but he is free to turn around, burn off grid, then travel to a system 10 jumps away in the time it takes you to disengage your link.
It's not about the individual sov structure or command node; it's about the ability for the interceptor to, when flown by a moderately competent pilot, to choose to disengage at will should the situation become untenable, and to begin poking another sov structure outside of the reach of any ship but another interceptor.
They feel no pity, no remorse, and no pain, and cannot be stopped. Even the Terminator wasn't so lucky. Not every alliance is sprawled across such large areas that an interceptor jumping 10 systems away is still their problem. Most individual regions consist of systems covering more than ten jumps. This assumes we own systems 10j away. We're not all Goonswarm Federation, with our record bot numbers (Deklein had the highest bot bans at fanfest either last year or the year before that), we don't all "need" a whole region to live in. woah check out the insult unearthed from 2011 boy howdy
gonna need a senzu bean for that one |
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1431
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:36:57 -
[2073] - Quote
MFW when BRAVE takes all sov in atrons |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1381
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:37:08 -
[2074] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours. You know, I remember this kind of rhetoric before. When the mobile siphon units were announced Goons swarmed (no pun intented) the thread with comments about how their siphons would blot out the sun, how they would siphon every moon in EVE. And it never happened. Ask the occupants of the south about being siphoned.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
562
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:39:04 -
[2075] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Lord TGR wrote: I'm confident that we've got enough manpower to give "zero craps" about this, and that if anything, we're actually trying to point out an actual problem which'll affect other, smaller groups than us to a much greater degree.
But that'd be ludicrous, right? Because grrgoons.
Over 9 regions? Best of luck with that. I found a WH to Branch once about a month ago, made it 10 systems (and made over 100m in exploration loot) before I saw another player. And he wasn't even CFC. look out, a weaponized anecdote
surely this one data point describes everything ever |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:46:45 -
[2076] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours.
Provi is the group that will benefit the most from this change.
The E-link world is a world where you don't need caps/supercaps to take and hold unattractive sov. You don't even need to win most of your PvP engagements to take and hold unattractive sov. The only requirement to take and hold unattractive sov is to be the only group that wants to live in that particular unattractive sov. The only people that seem to want to live in provi is provi. And they are pretty much the definition of a group of people actually living in their space on a daily basis.
The only thing that has kept provi alive this long is that no one took it from them and then made them pay rent, because everyone has a bit of a soft spot for provi and it wasn't worth the risk of accidentally starting a real war with someone important. Post E-links, provi will be forever protected by the fact that their space is simply worthless, and you can no longer force ANYone to pay rent for space your alliance is close to/living in.
Provi will be far safer than it's ever been under this new system. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
562
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:48:21 -
[2077] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours. Provi is the group that will benefit the most from this change. The E-link world is a world where you don't need caps/supercaps to take and hold unattractive sov. You don't even need to win most of your PvP engagements to take and hold unattractive sov. The only requirement to take and hold unattractive sov is to be the only group that wants to live in that particular unattractive sov. The only people that seem to want to live in provi is provi. And they are pretty much the definition of a group of people actually living in their space on a daily basis. The only thing that has kept provi alive this long is that no one took it from them and then made them pay rent, because everyone has a bit of a soft spot for provi and it wasn't worth the risk of accidentally starting a real war with someone important. Post E-links, provi will be forever protected by the fact that their space is simply worthless, and you can no longer force ANYone to pay rent for space your alliance is close to/living in. Provi will be far safer than it's ever been under this new system. i guess if they are okay with not being able to dock or get anom spawns |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
155
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:50:27 -
[2078] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:So if problems show up in discussion and playtesting we're happy to let players try to find a counter and then relatively easily step in if that counter doesn't materialize.
There is no Working way to tackle interceptors, and it's very hard to tackle Covops too.
It's hard for me to undestand way you keep the interceptos imba in this matter.
They should be allowed to do sov warfare if you can tackle this thing.
He will just leave the grid and come back when we warp off, and you can do this for ever ... :<
Thats way i think Interceptors and Covops hull should not be able to fit Sov linki thing. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
447
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:54:33 -
[2079] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Provi will be far safer than it's ever been under this new system.
I agree 100% please implement these changes as-is so that we can all save freeport Provi |
Ereilian
Mythic Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor
73
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:56:19 -
[2080] - Quote
A simple "fix" would to be to make this new SovLazor fittable on a specialty hull ... lets say a Command Ship. Make it an investment in effort to attack Sov rather than the usual anti-sov wormhole bears. |
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:01:13 -
[2081] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bienator II wrote: you can only troll an alliance if it overextended and owns a lot of space. If you don't own more than you can defend the problem doesn't exist.
The way the income is structured, people have to spread themselves thin. This must be accompanied by a nullsec income rework.
Sort of. Arguably an alliance is overextended if it is one where people are friends in name only, don't fly in the same TZ, and only have corps that don't declare independence because they can't field their own supercap fleet. The moment the alliance TZ and supercaps become irrelevant to those corps, expect a wave of balkanization. Basically this will affect alliances that have overextended their loyalty, not their reach.
Even with NO immediate changes to nullsec income, this should shake things up a lot.
But I agree that long term, this needs a rework to the upper limits on nullsec system pop density levels to get truly interesting. In the short term the only effect this has on the groups people love to hate is to invalidate their slumlord rental empires. It won't really affect the core alliance groups much and the loss of rental income will be offset by the ability to wage significant portions of sov warfare with subcaps instead of caps and supers. |
John Frohike
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:02:56 -
[2082] - Quote
I LOVE EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS! |
Biron Soringard
Absurdity of Abstractions Did he say Jump
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:03:24 -
[2083] - Quote
1. Cannot be fitted to hulls bonused for cloaks. Blops, Strat/Astero, Recons, T3's with covop reconf subs, etc. 2. Any ship fitted with E-Links loses any bubble immunity. This applies to ceptors and nullified T3s 3. E-links cannot be equipped or un-equipped from a mobile depot, given that they require more advanced interfacing with the capsuleer. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
857
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:04:38 -
[2084] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.
The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.
Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.
The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.
It happened. A Gevlon post that I actually agree with. I think I've just won Eve.
When you find people who typically despise each other agreeing, that's a sign that they are probably right.
Eve has consequences - but not in this system. When the attacker brings a gang of almost-uncatchable interceptors and the defender responds with brick-tanked T1 cruisers, the system is stupid. That is what most of Rise and Fozzie's changes have lead to as they have trashed most doctrines that have to commit to a fight in favor of the runaway or throwaway meta. Yes, it is good cheap fun for the newbies, but it's a kick in the balls to an eight year vet who likes to use the capitals and Supercapitals he has trained for and ground out through hours of work.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Ereilian
Mythic Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor
73
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:05:16 -
[2085] - Quote
Okay, someone correct me if I am incorrect, but TCU/IHUB's will still require online times of 8 hours and will STILL require bashing until they come online. True/False? |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:06:23 -
[2086] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Provi will be far safer than it's ever been under this new system. I agree 100% please implement these changes as-is so that we can all save freeport Provi
I detect sarcasm. But please tell me how this 200-man inty fleet is actually going to even START the timer on any structure in Provi? An area of space where CVA members flying brick-tacked armor subcaps will happily sit at 0 with a defensive E-link for 4 hours a day and then RP later in the forums about how they defended the glorious holy empire from heathen invaders?
An area of space where people actually, like... mine. For realz. And run ALL the anomalies, even the crap ones. Their industry and military indexes across the region are non-zero! Your inty fleet will need 20 to 30 minutes to E-link a single structure almost anywhere, which will be defended by 10 CVA RP diehards in spider-tanked Mallers who can absolutely out-RP you in local chat the entire time.
I'm pretty sure provi residents won't be the first to break under this scenario.
|
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:13:20 -
[2087] - Quote
Harrasment favouring changes won't change null. No matter how many idiots would love this, or how many other idiots hypocritical advocate for this. This happened when they introduced the spaceaids. Where are now all the working class heroes telling everyone how amazing and wonderfull it will be? Also spliting the game in precise timezones would lead to time-zone based alliances. Wich is absolutely bullcrap, and would deny totally the spirit of the game. There's absolutely no incentive for conflict in null besides resources. Wich at the moment are pretty lacking, after all the nerfs and "balances". Of couse, CCP can kill the game there by just making the space imposible to use decently. Probably they will do it too. Just because a "genius" there pretends THIS will bring people down. Or at least that's what we should believe. But i suspect this will be coupled with another low priced plex sale for "new alts". Cheap efficient **** done with untrained chars and low investment thing. Oh shure, there will be a lot of geniuses telling there's a lot of small conflict in null. Stop the bullcrap, it's not. It is a lot of small harassment in null. Just that. Want conflict? Make people fight. Is actually sooooo easy. Safe pvp killed all the fun. We might think CCP is after pvp. Have a good look. They not. Is just about bussines and as few work hey can get. And, for god's sake, i can understand this: it's a game just for US. For them, is a bussines. It has nothing to do with how awesome it is, because it is not anymore. It has nothing to do with how balanced or fair it is, because it's not. It has to do only with sales. They don't give a empty f*** about the playerbase's opinion, except it sells plex. Wake up, lol. There's absolutely no reason CCP would want a populated nullsec, if this does not sell enough plex. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
562
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:15:35 -
[2088] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Provi will be far safer than it's ever been under this new system. I agree 100% please implement these changes as-is so that we can all save freeport Provi I detect sarcasm. But please tell me how this 200-man inty fleet is actually going to even START the timer on any structure in Provi? An area of space where CVA members flying brick-tacked armor subcaps will happily sit at 0 with a defensive E-link for 4 hours a day and then RP later in the forums about how they defended the glorious holy empire from heathen invaders? An area of space where people actually, like... mine. For realz. And run ALL the anomalies, even the crap ones. Their industry and military indexes across the region are non-zero! Your inty fleet will need 20 to 30 minutes to E-link a single structure almost anywhere, which will be defended by 10 CVA RP diehards in spider-tanked Mallers who can absolutely out-RP you in local chat the entire time. I'm pretty sure provi residents won't be the first to break under this scenario. given that proviblock can't even vote correctly in the csm, i find this vignette to be very contrived |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:17:55 -
[2089] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Eve has consequences - but not in this system. When the attacker brings a gang of almost-uncatchable interceptors and the defender responds with brick-tanked T1 cruisers, the system is stupid.
This will only be happening when the attacker has no intention of doing anything. Which is fine, but they'll get bored of it once they've flipped all remote sov no one cares about and everything else they try to flip is always defended by locals in T1 cruisers. When these roaming inty gangs become totally ineffective and no longer flip anything because everything left is actually actively defended by locals; when they never get into ANY engagements because no one cares about their presence; when they are basically blue-balling themselves on a daily basis; how often do you think people will continue to sign up for those fleets?
Sure, they'll never disappear entirely, and they serve the important role of carrion birds in cleaning out the dead sov of null. But other than the initial feast gorging on dead sov no one gives a crap about, it'll become nothing but the occasional background noise.
The process of actually taking and HOLDING sov from an organized defender is no easier than before, and requires a considerable commitment of pilots and time. Brave won't be doing anything to NA. renters in 200 man inty fleets; they would need to dedicate actual meaningful subcap fleets to a prolonged warfront if they wanted to actually claim any of that space for real.
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:23:02 -
[2090] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: given that proviblock can't even vote correctly in the csm, i find this vignette to be very contrived
The fundamental reality of the E-link mechanic is that you don't have to be organized, rich, OR GOOD to defend your sov from harassment provided you actively live there. All you have to do is login regularly, fly in space, and be ready to defensive E-link in cheap disposable ships anything people try to drive-by-flip in an inty gang.
Sure, provibloc still won't be able to do much against anyone that actually wanted to take and HOLD their sov. But 11 years of EVE have shown us that absolutely no one wants to take and hold their sov, and there's no reason to think that's going to change. And CVA will no longer have to live with the threat that someone comes to take their sov once, at random, and then rents it back to them, because far-flung rental empires are untenable when anyone in a T1 cruiser fleet can reclaim sov in two days if you aren't around to defend it. |
|
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:24:10 -
[2091] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Eve has consequences - but not in this system. When the attacker brings a gang of almost-uncatchable interceptors and the defender responds with brick-tanked T1 cruisers, the system is stupid. This will only be happening when the attacker has no intention of doing anything. Which is fine, but they'll get bored of it once they've flipped all remote sov no one cares about and everything else they try to flip is always defended by locals in T1 cruisers. When these roaming inty gangs become totally ineffective and no longer flip anything because everything left is actually actively defended by locals; when they never get into ANY engagements because no one cares about their presence; when they are basically blue-balling themselves on a daily basis; how often do you think people will continue to sign up for those fleets? Sure, they'll never disappear entirely, and they serve the important role of carrion birds in cleaning out the dead sov of null. But other than the initial feast gorging on dead sov no one gives a crap about, it'll become nothing but the occasional background noise. The process of actually taking and HOLDING sov from an organized defender is no easier than before, and requires a considerable commitment of pilots and time. Brave won't be doing anything to NA. renters in 200 man inty fleets; they would need to dedicate actual meaningful subcap fleets to a prolonged warfront if they wanted to actually claim any of that space for real. NOONE will want to take space lol. Everybody will just want to destroy other's sov. That's all. Will be fun for like 2 weeks. Ok, after that what? |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:29:10 -
[2092] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Devi Loches wrote: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. So far this seems like the only reasonable counter to the trollceptors I've seen. It keeps the risks of defense roughly equal to that of the attackers. (Not the insanely expensive interceptors mentioned above, just the basic interceptors that would be common. Interceptor fleets vs ewar fleets.) The main issue is not the ISK vs ISK. It is the huge imbalance of afk cloaking attacker time vs defender vigilance. Because the system quickly spirals into massive consequences with minimal time investment on the part of attackers it will result in a horribly lopsided mechanic. For example, lets say blackops/reavers park 20-50 dudes afk cloaking in a region and their only goal is to flip/kill things the moment people aren't looking. So your choice as a defender is to have hyper vigilance every day during your period across all assets or suffer massive consequences. I doubt how many people realize how bad IHuBs are to deal with. The only investment on an attackers part is an alt and some brief attention spans when they feel like watching. The investment on the defenders part is a period of hyper vigilance across every system they own. Multiply this by the attackers being able to do this across all of null at random and you see the problem. If you tell people they can lock dudes out of their capital with a single real fight then lawl. Why would anyone store any amount of material in a null station. Move to NPC null or a lowsec border system. This is going to heavily incentivize ice-bergging again. The timers basically need to preserve 2-3 fights before huge consequences (freeport) and have a FAR bigger bonus to high indexes. A 5/5 index system should take at least 1 hour if not 2. At least until someone fixes freaking industry indexes god.
Well written sir, you basically said what many other would not in this thread, its not like a ceptor or other small ship with an entosis module is going to be facing active defense every moment of the 4 or more hour window depending on the final version. This is why SBUS were put in to dominion sov, to give the defender a chance to get ready to fight over the initial reinforcement timer. SBUS were actually extreme succesful with this with many fights and hot drops occuring over SBU control. I personally think that under the new system the SBU should continue to play a role in making a system vulnerable with a few noteable changes. 1. reduce online time from 3 hours to 30minutes or an hour. reduce the hitpoints on the sbu by about a 1/3. This encoragers active attacker defence but does not leave the defender open to being attacked whenever "just because". (i would also suggest a cost rebalance on the materials required to build an SBU to match.
Of the many bad things about dominion the SBU mechanic was not one of them. bring sbus into the new system to decide system vulnerability, reduce SBU cost (aim should be 50-70 mil per), reduce online timers and hitpoints to match.
I also agree with your statement in reguard to the stations, with one timer deciding freeport mode or not it extremely decentralizes staging in a conquerable station which really should be the case, purely because of how easy it becomes in freeport mode to get yourself and your assets stuck in said station. I and i suspect many others would support the command node mechanics + 2 timers of 24-48 hours instead of 1 timer and freeport mode.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts on this aryth |
Terraniel Aurelius
High Flyers The Kadeshi
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:29:18 -
[2093] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Terraniel Aurelius wrote:Also, what is the point of having the command nodes show up anywhere within the constellation? Shouldn't they be limited to the sov that is being attacked? I mean, it makes sense if a single entity holds the constellation, but if it's just a single system held by an alliance/corp, then it seems arbitrarily tedious to have to run around all over the place to defend your sov. Sort of like fighting a war in a different country to defend your borders. the stated goals are to split fights for the sake of tactical interest and to avoid them being tidi-ed to tedium. the constellation thing's weird but maybe it was seen as a necessity to achieve those goals?
I get the splitting fights idea, but I'm assuming you won't have 500 people trying to move into a single system for their sov. Not like it really matters. We who have several hundreds of pvp people in our alliances will still be able to maintain the space that we want/need against any unorganized rabble. Organized rabble on the other hand, probably already have sov and can't leave it undefended to come and attack our sov.
I feel like what is needed is some sort of border system, where the more sov you have, the weaker your borders are, and more defenders are required. Right now it's pretty much impossible to stop a hostile cyno-capable force from getting behind your lines with even a modicum of effort, so you have to control everything to the choke points. I don't think we want to control all that space, but I feel like we have to, to maintain supply routes and keep any potential threats from establishing a foothold. Once inside a region, there are essentially no more choke points with cyno-bridging entities. |
Optimist Bob
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:30:31 -
[2094] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Optimist Bob wrote:Might I respectfully suggest that CCP consider one small change. That rather than reinforcing with an Entosis module incrementally, an attacker must have his Entosis module on the sovereignty unit being attacked for the full timer. Thus, any form of LOL reinforcing may be reverse trolled by simply waiting until the timer has nearly expired before decloaking a Falcon, jamming the aggressor and resetting the entire process. Thus, an attacker must be committed to the conquest, or run the risk of being trolled himself.
Maybe too harsh to have it fully reset each time but also it backs up my prior suggestion for marauders to be the uber entosis ships with ewar immunity but no time penalty :)
I agree. In retrospect, a full reset might be harsh. Perhaps as well as the time delay after re-lock, a percentage increase in the time needed to complete the action based on Entosis time already inflicted would serve. The idea of someone adding a minute, then coming back an hour later and adding another minute seems absurd. Although, if someone were to leave while halfway through damaging a station service, my understanding is that the defender could re-establish it back to full again. So maybe this is a moot point. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:34:11 -
[2095] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:NOONE will want to take space lol. Everybody will just want to destroy other's sov. That's all. Will be fun for like 2 weeks. Ok, after that what?
No one wants to take anyone's space now, either.
2 weeks of fun and a daily system of sov harassment (to which you will soon have to start committing fleets slightly more scary than roaming inty gangs if you want to accomplish any actual harassment) is better than absolute stagnation. More importantly, we'll then have a sov system that no longer serves as its own deterrent to sov conflict.
Obviously CCP still needs to address the issues of nullsec life, industrial/mining attractiveness, player density limits with regard to anoms being primary income sources, etc. But NO amount of tweaks to these incentives will accomplish anything as long as structure grinds remain the deterrent to sov warfare and supercaps remain the deterrent to structure grinds.
This is completely ignoring the number of short and medium term conflicts that will arise from small groups no longer needing to pay for supercap fleet leases. They can put their own name on the map, simplify their PI ownership, grab a couple of moons, save money by not paying rent, etc. There are a lot of immediate incentives to drive conflict once the structure grind deterrent is removed. The cost required to take and hold sov you already live in, which no one else really wants to own, and which you will already need to defend locally on a daily basis, is going to go down drastically. The economics behind the current balance of power/rentals is going to shift radically.
But yeah, long term health still depends on CCP addressing all the other nullsec issues. Luckily their dev blog said as much. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:36:00 -
[2096] - Quote
Querns wrote:Believe it or not, when I describe the interceptor's potential prowess in the new system, I'm not using it as a shield to protect I and mine's way of life. Believe me when I say that Goonswarm Federation's ability to optimize any game system precludes any fantasies you might have about our future. After all, they do listen to me. I am careful to avoid this, as it's way too easy to tear down and be used against me.
Think of what I say in more apolitical terms. Having an agenda simply isn't necessary when my point doesn't require it.
In fact I think it could be said as the mechanics are currently presented goonswarm and the CFC as a whole would be at the greatest advantage due to the numbers at there disposal, and the number of fc's they have willing to engage in les than enjoyable activities. So hats off to our goon cousins for honestly viewing the proposed new mechnics without much bias.
Anyone who imagines these mechancis as written will be a gunshot to CFc knee is delusional, no alliance is better at leveraging numbers and # of timers to their advantage. As organized as n3 can sometimes be, they are even better in this reguard. As someone who has had region commander access briefly i can tell you that organizationally they are miles ahead of the rest of us. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:41:45 -
[2097] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:No, that's the point. We're not going to provide any content to whatever alliance holds the space. We're going to take their sov with an interceptor fleet because we dictate the battles and they will be unable to catch all of us. Which is essentially almost like Dominion sov where n+1 always wins. You can't dictate a battle when you're all in ships that do <100 dps. Sure you can cyno some caps in to one or two systems at a time, maybe even try moving them through gates to assist in multiple command point fights but when you're dedicating your numbers into essentially useless combat hulls you won't be able to hold a grid to complete your RFs or captures without bringing in reinforcements in far more killable ships. We can torch half of the south in less than an hour with said ships under these changes. We dont even need to fire a shot. Where are you people getting these numbers from? Your arguments are based on a wild assumption someone made on the first page that you could fit this module to a ceptor, of which i can find absolutely none, nada, zip, nothing offical as to what the fitting requirments would be. After a 100page threadnaught im sure the Devs get it. Fitting these on ceptors will be a bad idea and totally OP. Give Fozzie and Rise and the rest of the Dev team dealing with Sov and ship balancing a little credit.
I have watched CCP mess up 1 sov system change and countless other revamps, they honestly have not earned that credit. If anything they have earned exactly what they are getting, which is players speaking out and voicing there concerns. If it was there intention form the beginning the devblog would have said, something like "these modules will have a high enough fitting requirement to make them impracticable or impossible to fit on xx sized hulls". I will grant that it may have been an oversight while dealing with the larger issue of sov and the mechanics behind it, but it was the first thing i thought of when i read the blog as well. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6554
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:42:11 -
[2098] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Querns wrote:Believe it or not, when I describe the interceptor's potential prowess in the new system, I'm not using it as a shield to protect I and mine's way of life. Believe me when I say that Goonswarm Federation's ability to optimize any game system precludes any fantasies you might have about our future. After all, they do listen to me. I am careful to avoid this, as it's way too easy to tear down and be used against me.
Think of what I say in more apolitical terms. Having an agenda simply isn't necessary when my point doesn't require it. In fact I think it could be said as the mechanics are currently presented goonswarm and the CFC as a whole would be at the greatest advantage due to the numbers at there disposal, and the number of fc's they have willing to engage in les than enjoyable activities. So hats off to our goon cousins for honestly viewing the proposed new mechnics without much bias. Anyone who imagines these mechancis as written will be a gunshot to CFc knee is delusional, no alliance is better at leveraging numbers and # of timers to their advantage. As organized as n3 can sometimes be, they are even better in this reguard. As someone who has had region commander access briefly i can tell you that organizationally they are miles ahead of the rest of us. Oh DARKNESS., I remember seeing you when we were in ladyscarlet's rental space recently as part of the group that doesn't exist.
How about those sov ehp nerfs, huh. Made making timers so much easier.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
562
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:42:29 -
[2099] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: given that proviblock can't even vote correctly in the csm, i find this vignette to be very contrived
The fundamental reality of the E-link mechanic is that you don't have to be organized, rich, OR GOOD to defend your sov from harassment provided you actively live there. All you have to do is login regularly, fly in space, and be ready to defensive E-link in cheap disposable ships anything people try to drive-by-flip in an inty gang. Sure, provibloc still won't be able to do much against anyone that actually wanted to take and HOLD their sov. But 11 years of EVE have shown us that absolutely no one wants to take and hold their sov, and there's no reason to think that's going to change. And CVA will no longer have to live with the threat that someone comes to take their sov once, at random, and then rents it back to them, because far-flung rental empires are untenable when anyone in a T1 cruiser fleet can reclaim sov in two days if you aren't around to defend it. the point isn't to take and hold provi
it's to continually raze the ihub and flip the stations
with no ihub you lose all the advantages of owning sov; jump bridges (lol), anom respawns, grav site respawns, beacons, cynojammers, and supercap production (though i definitely cannot speak to whether that is feasible there so i won't dwell on that)
without even the barest respawning anoms and without the grav sites, providence becomes npc space, except for repeated 48 hour intervals at a time you can't dock, and there are no missions
invading forces probably won't even bother to attack the TCUs at all |
El'Grimm
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:46:39 -
[2100] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours. Provi is the group that will benefit the most from this change. The E-link world is a world where you don't need caps/supercaps to take and hold unattractive sov. You don't even need to win most of your PvP engagements to take and hold unattractive sov. The only requirement to take and hold unattractive sov is to be the only group that wants to live in that particular unattractive sov. The only people that seem to want to live in provi is provi. And they are pretty much the definition of a group of people actually living in their space on a daily basis. The only thing that has kept provi alive this long is that no one took it from them and then made them pay rent, because everyone has a bit of a soft spot for provi and it wasn't worth the risk of accidentally starting a real war with someone important. Post E-links, provi will be forever protected by the fact that their space is simply worthless, and you can no longer force ANYone to pay rent for space your alliance is close to/living in. Provi will be far safer than it's ever been under this new system.
Well Your wrong. Current mechanics dictate that structures are the target, said structures need huge resources to combat, and any coalition that comes to provi trying to engage those targets not only has to fight us, but EVERY enemy they have acquired, looking to kill them and the assets they bring. Our ability to make everyone who has come to provi bleed isk, combined with the literal billions and billions of hp's of structures to affect our region is what has saved us. Space quality is irrelevant for griefing and trolling. If the enemy comes is cheap assed, or simply no fun to engage ships, no-one is gonna want to help you.
I said this in a previous post, yes by the new proposed mechanics we are in theory one of the strongest regions in all of eve for this proposed expansion, our entire coalition is pretty much crammed into one region, and our industry on that chart floating around is the best index in all of new eden (lol yeah ours is 1, everyone else is 0). But I see virtually no actual benefit from this, larger than us entities will simply N+1 us, and smaller entities will troll us so badly it will make the game ****, as we chase trolls who ping timers for a chase. Our new players will get farmed by better players who ping timers, and old players who have dedicated the game time to building up the region are already starting to quit as this change shows them that they are unwanted in this game.
This expansion does so much to encourage small skirmish and harassment warfare (shock horror something fozzie was known for as a player). But how it improves the game of thousands of sov bloc players, who don't want some ****** skirmish no depth pvp, in this format just begs the question of how ccp can possibly think this is an improvement.
The cost and time of being a sov holder, compared to the cost and time of attacking someone who has sov with this new system is going to make what is already a vacant wasteland for most of null even worse. Even the big bloc industrialists, I bet, will be looking at this and going.. yeah screw null industry, the risk of loosing everything because of a few ****** days just isn't worth it.
This rolls out in june apparently, if it rolls as it is, the 4th of July weekend will open up every flaw it has, it'll expose the TZ blatant flaws, losses to the superblocs proving a point, will likely cause the largest unsub ever, small alliances thinking this is gonna be easy will loose hundreds of pretty ships, so there disappointment will add to the mix too.
So yeah provi probably is better suited than many to deal with this... and I still say it suck balls.
|
|
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:47:34 -
[2101] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:OldWolf69 wrote:NOONE will want to take space lol. Everybody will just want to destroy other's sov. That's all. Will be fun for like 2 weeks. Ok, after that what? No one wants to take anyone's space now, either. 2 weeks of fun and a daily system of sov harassment (to which you will soon have to start committing fleets slightly more scary than roaming inty gangs if you want to accomplish any actual harassment) is better than absolute stagnation. More importantly, we'll then have a sov system that no longer serves as its own deterrent to sov conflict. Obviously CCP still needs to address the issues of nullsec life, industrial/mining attractiveness, player density limits with regard to anoms being primary income sources, etc. But NO amount of tweaks to these incentives will accomplish anything as long as structure grinds remain the deterrent to sov warfare and supercaps remain the deterrent to structure grinds. This is completely ignoring the number of short and medium term conflicts that will arise from small groups no longer needing to pay for supercap fleet leases. They can put their own name on the map, simplify their PI ownership, grab a couple of moons, save money by not paying rent, etc. There are a lot of immediate incentives to drive conflict once the structure grind deterrent is removed. The cost required to take and hold sov you already live in, which no one else really wants to own, and which you will already need to defend locally on a daily basis, is going to go down drastically. The economics behind the current balance of power/rentals is going to shift radically. But yeah, long term health still depends on CCP addressing all the other nullsec issues. Luckily their dev blog said as much. Is it just me, or are you trying to tell me that renters will take space? Hiseccers will come to null? Last time i heard this Greyscale moved jobs. http://i.imgur.com/3RZ7jD8.jpg?1
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
402
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:53:18 -
[2102] - Quote
the sargent wrote:It's funny, everyone tells CCP they want a occupancy based SOV system. When CCP comes up with a system that takes the basic concept of "occupancy" and uses it as a mechanic everyone start whining about how it will ruin everything. Seriously guys calm down if it doesn't work out guess what? it will be fixed in a couple of months because of the shorter release schedule. Give the system a chance first before going "IT'S THE END!"
I mean seriously every time CCP changes something to do will null sec its "the end of null sec as we know it," and yes that is true but just because it's the end of one system doesn't mean the new system is going to be complete trash.
Damn, sorry for the minor wall of text. CCP has a long history of breaking stuff and walking away from it. Not sure where you get this faith that they will fix it after the fact.
I also don't see how "occupancy" is given all that much more than lip service in this blog. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
98
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:54:21 -
[2103] - Quote
Quote: Oh DARKNESS., I remember seeing you when we were in ladyscarlet's rental space recently as part of the group that doesn't exist.
How about those sov ehp nerfs, huh. Made making timers so much easier.
I actually liked the EHP nerfs, I thought they made timers and conquest easier for small groups without , giving to much additional benefit to large groups. The EHP nerfs if anything were one of the better changes CCP has made in the last year. I think more small iteration like EHP changes on sov structures coupled with mechanics shakeups to spread out fighting (i.e. the command nodes) is the way to go. Much easier to see how well mechanics work when you add them in a few at a time and with the new release cadence much more feasable to spend several releases building or modfying a sov system. The current revamp attempt is reminiscent of the jesus feature days where CCP is throwing a hail mary and hoping it sticks.
EDIT: There is some stuff in here that I really really like that i think adds to nullsec conquest and gameplay, but it is mixed in with equal parts horrid and bad. the concept of command nodes across constellations = good. The bad being harped on pretty well so i wont go into detail. But the key here is that only in the last year have we even started to see iteration on dominion, which was promised on its launch (and never happend). Even what we see here couples key points of dominion (ihubs, tcus ect) in with the new system, the vulnerability period and how vulnerability is decided along with the entosis module are the key points of contention. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:05:35 -
[2104] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: given that proviblock can't even vote correctly in the csm, i find this vignette to be very contrived
The fundamental reality of the E-link mechanic is that you don't have to be organized, rich, OR GOOD to defend your sov from harassment provided you actively live there. All you have to do is login regularly, fly in space, and be ready to defensive E-link in cheap disposable ships anything people try to drive-by-flip in an inty gang. Sure, provibloc still won't be able to do much against anyone that actually wanted to take and HOLD their sov. But 11 years of EVE have shown us that absolutely no one wants to take and hold their sov, and there's no reason to think that's going to change. And CVA will no longer have to live with the threat that someone comes to take their sov once, at random, and then rents it back to them, because far-flung rental empires are untenable when anyone in a T1 cruiser fleet can reclaim sov in two days if you aren't around to defend it. the point isn't to take and hold provi it's to continually raze the ihub and flip the stations with no ihub you lose all the advantages of owning sov; jump bridges (lol), anom respawns, grav site respawns, beacons, cynojammers, and supercap production (though i definitely cannot speak to whether that is feasible there so i won't dwell on that) without even the barest respawning anoms and without the grav sites, providence becomes npc space, except for repeated 48 hour intervals at a time you can't dock, and there are no missions invading forces probably won't even bother to attack the TCUs at all
Why do I sense a "please don't throw me into the briar patch" thing going on here. You just described something the goons of olde would have done, being more about mayhem than ISK. I've been privately told by long time goons that they are not happy with the status quo ISK happy goons.
The goons of years ago would have loved these new SOV mechanics and it would be back to "OMG! Bees!"
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
373
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:08:10 -
[2105] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:the point isn't to take and hold provi
it's to continually raze the ihub and flip the stations
with no ihub you lose all the advantages of owning sov; jump bridges (lol), anom respawns, grav site respawns, beacons, cynojammers, and supercap production (though i definitely cannot speak to whether that is feasible there so i won't dwell on that)
The 200-man inty fleet that was proposed won't be able to do any of this. They can be effectively countered by a small T1 spider tanking cruiser fleet running a couple of defensive E-links on those ihubs/stations. (EDIT: or, if those inty's spread out to try and flip more timers at once, by anyone in a noobship defensive E-linking across the whole region where they already live and fly daily).
This kind of daily razing of Provi would require considerably stronger forces than a roaming inty gang to have any effect, because it is trivial to defend against unless you actually bring a fleet capable of applying DPS and controlling the grid. The bogeyman of the 200-man roaming inty fleet is a total strawman to anyone actually living in their sov space.
Now, does Provi need to worry about a 200-man Ishtar fleet coming through and razing their sov? Sure, but with no strong cap/supercap fleet of their own, they pretty much ALREADY have to worry about that. And that certainly isn't the 200-man inty gang that started this particular convo. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
562
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:11:01 -
[2106] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Why do I sense a "please don't throw me into the briar patch" thing going on here. You just described something the goons of olde would have done, being more about mayhem than ISK. I've been privately told by long time goons that they are not happy with the status quo ISK happy goons.
The goons of years ago would have loved these new SOV mechanics and it would be back to "OMG! Bees!"
because you are delusional |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
562
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:11:56 -
[2107] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:the point isn't to take and hold provi
it's to continually raze the ihub and flip the stations
with no ihub you lose all the advantages of owning sov; jump bridges (lol), anom respawns, grav site respawns, beacons, cynojammers, and supercap production (though i definitely cannot speak to whether that is feasible there so i won't dwell on that) The 200-man inty fleet that was proposed won't be able to do any of this. They can be effectively countered by a small T1 spider tanking cruiser fleet running a couple of defensive E-links on those ihubs/stations. (EDIT: or, if those inty's spread out to try and flip more timers at once, by a anyone in a noobship defensive E-linking across the whole region where they already live and fly daily). This kind of daily razing of Provi would require considerably stronger forces than a roaming inty gang to have any effect, because it is trivial to defend against unless you actually bring a fleet capable of controlling the grid. The bogeyman of the 200-man roaming inty fleet is a total strawman to anyone actually living in their sov space. Now, does Provi need to worry about a 200-man Ishtar fleet coming through and razing their sov? Sure, but with no strong cap/supercap fleet of their own, they pretty much ALREADY have to worry about that. And that certainly isn't the 200-man inty gang that started this particular convo. good luck catching interceptors with 3.0 AU/s cruisers |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
562
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:14:26 -
[2108] - Quote
also jesus christ spider tanking cruisers ahahaha
if you had said ishtars or tengus i might believe it
even then a group that can contest one beacon is going to have trouble contesting the 242 simultaneous timers that the other interceptors are making
75 stations + 2 * 84 systems btw |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
373
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:20:06 -
[2109] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:good luck catching interceptors with 3.0 AU/s cruisers
Why would I try to catch them?
Wherever they go to flip a structure, the 10-man T1 cruiser fleet will have no problems getting there within the 10 or 20 minutes required for those inties to finish the E-link cycle (depending on indices). They'll know exactly where to go because it's announced after the attacker's E-link finishes its warmup cycle. They will have plenty of time to arrive, land on 0, be immune to any damage projection a 200-man inty fleet can apply, and start their own defensive E-link which negates the entire effort. They don't have to catch or kill the inty fleet, they simply need to prevent them from accomplishing anything.
So great, after 4 hours the inty fleet leaves. They wasted 800 pilot hours to accomplish literally nothing, while the defenders wasted 40 pilot hours making sure the attackers accomplished literally nothing. Oh, and the defenders didn't leave home; they have no travel time, they were ALREADY THERE, and they can just dock up, switch ships, and go back to whatever they were doing. Meanwhile the inty fleet is still 40j from wherever they live or parked their jumpclones.
How many of these inty fleets do you think will get repeat pilots signing up?
If the 200-man inty fleet spreads out, it's the same scenario except instead of a single cruiser fleet, every local provi resident just has to take 30 minutes to sit in a T1 frig to defensive E-link whatever the small group of inty's are locally trying to flip nearby. |
Gevlin
House of the Dead Monkey SpaceMonkey's Alliance
256
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:21:21 -
[2110] - Quote
I know some people hated the grind of damaging and repairing. I actually enjoyed it. Bringing my big ship to spend 15 mins repairing or shooting something.
I did not have much fun when in the CFC we would simply blob caps, then jump out. The thrill of being one of only a few dreads or triage carriers either destroying or repairing something while you had people set up as scouts was enjoyable. Sorta like mining but with other tools. Yup you guessed it I am mainly a miner.
Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again.
|
|
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:22:33 -
[2111] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:good luck catching interceptors with 3.0 AU/s cruisers Why would I try to catch them? Wherever they go to flip a structure, the 10-man T1 cruiser fleet will have no problems getting there within the 10 or 20 minutes required for those inties to finish the E-link cycle (depending on indices). They'll know exactly where to go because it's announced after the attacker's E-link finishes its warmup cycle. They will have plenty of time to arrive, land on 0, be immune to any damage projection a 200-man inty fleet can apply, and start their own defensive E-link which negates the entire effort. They don't have to catch or kill the inty fleet, they simply need to prevent them from accomplishing anything. So great, after 4 hours the inty fleet leaves. They wasted 800 pilot hours to accomplish literally nothing, while the defenders wasted 40 pilot hours making sure the attackers accomplished literally nothing. Oh, and the defenders didn't leave home; they have no travel time, they were ALREADY THERE, and they can just dock up, switch ships, and go back to whatever they were doing. Meanwhile the inty fleet is still 40j from wherever they live or parked their jumpclones. How many of these inty fleets do you think will get repeat pilots signing up? If the 200-man inty fleet spreads out, it's the same scenario except instead of a single cruiser fleet, every local provi resident just has to take 30 minutes to sit in a T1 frig to defensive E-link whatever the small group of inty's are locally trying to flip nearby. Considering what you say, then what's the point of all this? They will try it for 2 days. Ok. After that? Where's the change, the good fights, the awesomeness CCP promises us when they introduce every single fail decision on a gameplay they just fail to understand? |
Yeoman18
Sanctuary of Shadows
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:23:46 -
[2112] - Quote
I feel as though a few tweaks to your proposal would allow you to accomplish your goals while eliminating the easy griefing.
1. Reduce the range of the T2 capture mod to 50km. That puts the all potential ships trying to capture in range of bonused range webs/points, but still allows for kiting with faster ships if specialized defense ships to counter are not brought.
2. Limit Entosis modules to cruisers or larger. I'm really not a fan of the idea of frigates/destroyers capturing sov. However, my other two points would still cover the main problems with using frigates/destroyers if the entosis module was not limited to cruiser or larger.
3. Allow TCU's/Ihubsto be deployed close to POSes. This will allow defenders to create a decent defense against smaller fleets for their sov at all times without a presence. A reasonably set up fleet can overcome any pos defense, but sending individuals or groups of 2 or 3 to grief many systems would not be viable. This also gives the defenders an advantage when defending against small/medium fleets. I also wouldn't be opposed to allocating more PG/CPU to POSes to allow for better defenses.
4. Remove the 4 hour vulnerable window. This alienates alternate timezones and discourages multi-timezone alliances. I understand the point of this windows but it won't translate well in the game. Players who cannot login during the vulnerability time will never get to see a defense fleet. If you must, allow defenders to choose an 8 hour window where it's invulnerable. This would still provide ample opportunity for all to attack/defend any sov while giving the defenders the benefit of protecting their most vulnerable time.
I really do like the ideas behind your proposed changes, but they need tweaking. I believe my modifications listed above would help accomplish your listed goals without making sov defense a daily 4 hour chase fest.. I hope you read and consider this post. Thank you for your time.
A 5 year eve player, Yeoman18 |
Yeoman18
Sanctuary of Shadows
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:38:09 -
[2113] - Quote
Oops, it looks like TCU's can be deployed 50km away from a control tower. Anyways, I still maintain that increasing the potential defenses of a pos would be good for countering the griefing. It should require an organized fleet to take sov, but it shouldn't be a seemingly impossible barrier for the smaller groups. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
373
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:38:52 -
[2114] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:Considering what you say, then what's the point of all this? They will try it for 2 days. Ok. After that? Where's the change, the good fights, the awesomeness CCP promises us when they introduce every single fail decision on a gameplay they just fail to understand?
Well first off, rental empires are going to vanish. There is not a single renter corp that needs to pay 1B or 2B a month for crapsec that no one else wants to live in when they can claim sov with a small fleet and risk a few hundred M tops. Especially when they are ALREADY going to be responsible for defending their space locally from harassment because there's no way landlords can defend the scope of their territories from the daily razing inty fleets just described. That's a pretty big shakeup right there that will affect large alliance coffers and fracture the map drastically.
Second, when sov harassment becomes a thing you can do with a 50-man cruiser fleet to your mortal enemies, the average line member of a large alliance is going to have a lot of fun flying actual fleets against their actual enemies (not just lolfit inty gangs). Sov flips and structure pops in border systems between large groups at odds with each other will be far more common. Or even within large blue groups, depending. This is going to wreak havoc on diplos trying to keep everything blue. There will be dozens of daily sov "incidents" because no alliance is going to be able to stop their line members from shitting on the sov of anyone and everyone. What are you going to do, not SRP their T1 cruiser fleet? Kick the line members out who actually do the work of defensive E-linking your space? Pfft.
I mean we just saw a Goon talking about taking out his 200-pilot inty fleet to harass provi sov. How long until that guy realizes he can do the same thing to FA, someone he actually doesn't like, that is only a few jumps away instead of across the map? How long do you think alliance diplos can keep that relationship blue when small line member fleets can and will be flipping each other's sov on a daily basis?
But yes, long term we still need more fixes to living in nullsec to make space worth having, sure. Support for density would be particularly nice, and making mining not funny would be good too. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
431
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:45:09 -
[2115] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:good luck catching interceptors with 3.0 AU/s cruisers Why would I try to catch them? Wherever they go to flip a structure, the 10-man T1 cruiser fleet will have no problems getting there within the 10 or 20 minutes required for those inties to finish the E-link cycle (depending on indices). They'll know exactly where to go because it's announced after the attacker's E-link finishes its warmup cycle. They will have plenty of time to arrive, land on 0, be immune to any damage projection a 200-man inty fleet can apply, and start their own defensive E-link which negates the entire effort. They don't have to catch or kill the inty fleet, they simply need to prevent them from accomplishing anything. So great, after 4 hours the inty fleet leaves. They wasted 800 pilot hours to accomplish literally nothing, while the defenders wasted 40 pilot hours making sure the attackers accomplished literally nothing. Oh, and the defenders didn't leave home; they have no travel time, they were ALREADY THERE, and they can just dock up, switch ships, and go back to whatever they were doing. Meanwhile the inty fleet is still 40j from wherever they live or parked their jumpclones. How many of these inty fleets do you think will get repeat pilots signing up? If the 200-man inty fleet spreads out, it's the same scenario except instead of a single cruiser fleet, every local provi resident just has to take 30 minutes to sit in a T1 frig to defensive E-link whatever the small group of inty's are locally trying to flip nearby. Considering what you say, then what's the point of all this? They will try it for 2 days. Ok. After that? Where's the change, the good fights, the awesomeness CCP promises us when they introduce every single fail decision on a gameplay they just fail to understand?
The change is that when the roamers bring a 20-man gang with logi, the local renter bears either undock and fight, or lose the system. |
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:45:18 -
[2116] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:good luck catching interceptors with 3.0 AU/s cruisers Why would I try to catch them? Wherever they go to flip a structure, the 10-man T1 cruiser fleet will have no problems getting there within the 10 or 20 minutes required for those inties to finish the E-link cycle (depending on indices). They'll know exactly where to go because it's announced after the attacker's E-link finishes its warmup cycle. They will have plenty of time to arrive, land on 0, be immune to any damage projection a 200-man inty fleet can apply, and start their own defensive E-link which negates the entire effort. They don't have to catch or kill the inty fleet, they simply need to prevent them from accomplishing anything. So great, after 4 hours the inty fleet leaves. They wasted 800 pilot hours to accomplish literally nothing, while the defenders wasted 40 pilot hours making sure the attackers accomplished literally nothing. Oh, and the defenders didn't leave home; they have no travel time, they were ALREADY THERE, and they can just dock up, switch ships, and go back to whatever they were doing. Meanwhile the inty fleet is still 40j from wherever they live or parked their jumpclones. How many of these inty fleets do you think will get repeat pilots signing up? If the 200-man inty fleet spreads out, it's the same scenario except instead of a single cruiser fleet, every local provi resident just has to take 30 minutes to sit in a T1 frig to defensive E-link whatever the small group of inty's are locally trying to flip nearby.
How does a squad of 10 cruisers cover all of providence even with jump bridges? 84 systems? Hot tip you won't cover all systems in even 40 minutes before on system is reffed. To really stop 200 interceptors trying to flip a region like Goons will do, just beccause we get to watch the world burn, you will need 2 or 3 squads of 10 cruisers per constellation. Thats something like a full fleet of cruisers. Both sides running around in space playing wack-a-mole.
Compellimg game play.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:47:32 -
[2117] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:OldWolf69 wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:good luck catching interceptors with 3.0 AU/s cruisers Why would I try to catch them? Wherever they go to flip a structure, the 10-man T1 cruiser fleet will have no problems getting there within the 10 or 20 minutes required for those inties to finish the E-link cycle (depending on indices). They'll know exactly where to go because it's announced after the attacker's E-link finishes its warmup cycle. They will have plenty of time to arrive, land on 0, be immune to any damage projection a 200-man inty fleet can apply, and start their own defensive E-link which negates the entire effort. They don't have to catch or kill the inty fleet, they simply need to prevent them from accomplishing anything. So great, after 4 hours the inty fleet leaves. They wasted 800 pilot hours to accomplish literally nothing, while the defenders wasted 40 pilot hours making sure the attackers accomplished literally nothing. Oh, and the defenders didn't leave home; they have no travel time, they were ALREADY THERE, and they can just dock up, switch ships, and go back to whatever they were doing. Meanwhile the inty fleet is still 40j from wherever they live or parked their jumpclones. How many of these inty fleets do you think will get repeat pilots signing up? If the 200-man inty fleet spreads out, it's the same scenario except instead of a single cruiser fleet, every local provi resident just has to take 30 minutes to sit in a T1 frig to defensive E-link whatever the small group of inty's are locally trying to flip nearby. Considering what you say, then what's the point of all this? They will try it for 2 days. Ok. After that? Where's the change, the good fights, the awesomeness CCP promises us when they introduce every single fail decision on a gameplay they just fail to understand? The change is that when the roamers bring a 20-man gang with logi, the local renter bears either undock and fight, or lose the system. Ok, after that?
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
373
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:52:24 -
[2118] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:Is it just me, or are you trying to tell me that renters will take space? Hiseccers will come to null?
Renters already own the space in all but name only. The moment they don't need to pay for supercap fleet leases, yes, they will take the space in name too.
No, hiseccers will not come to null. I never claimed they would. I don't see this doing much to increase the population of null; just to make it somewhat more lively and interesting and engaging for those living there already. That said, a lot of WH corps might come to null. I know ours is considering it.
El'Grimm wrote:But I see virtually no actual benefit from this, larger than us entities will simply N+1 us, and smaller entities will troll us so badly it will make the game ****, as we chase trolls who ping timers for a chase. Our new players will get farmed by better players who ping timers, and old players who have dedicated the game time to building up the region are already starting to quit as this change shows them that they are unwanted in this game.
I think you are missing a key element here. People currently come to provi for these kinds of fights because it never has a risk of escalating into a supercap sov battle. They pretty much have no other targets ATM that come risk-free like that.
Once this change goes live, provi is going to become a lot quieter in general. Why would Goons fly 40j to provi space with their 200-man inty fleet when FA is NEXT DOOR? They no longer have to worry about every single sov skirmish escalating into a supercap structure grinding nightmare war. They can just shoot at FA's border systems while FA shoots at their border systems and get all that same fun combat right at home, without every single conflict escalating into structure grinds and 3 month supercap tidi fights.
I agree this change would suck immensely for provi if the status quo of every large alliance day-tripping to provi space to get their pvp fix and in order to just keep harassing you guys remained unchanged. But I honestly believe people will quickly realize that, with supercaps and structure grinds out of the picture, they can have a lot more fun harassing their barely-blue neighbors once again instead.
Won't save you guys from Brave though :) |
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:57:16 -
[2119] - Quote
just give the sov blaster to Titans -nothing says "I'm here to ******* demolish your empire" like a TITAN with a target painter. If you can't waste said titan, you need to fold and join one that can so eve can go back to being CFC vs NC with PL playing pivot man for iskies. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:02:42 -
[2120] - Quote
Fa and Goons are blue to each other you blithering fool |
|
Pok Nibin
Filial Pariahs
579
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:07:18 -
[2121] - Quote
The problem with all these "honest" observations is we don't know which ones bringing complaints are the ones that take away unreasonable or unfair advantages. And, we can't rely on these people being honest about it.
Dont fight it; Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs; You know you want to.
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
374
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:09:54 -
[2122] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:CCP has a long history of breaking stuff and walking away from it. Not sure where you get this faith that they will fix it after the fact.
Fair enough. But with their new release cycle they have actually been iteratively fixing things and making adjustments as they go. While their overall history sucks, I truly believe they've turned over a new leaf and their recent history, so far, supports this view. Of course there's always the risk that they backslide into their former bad habits and leave everything broken. But everything is ALREADY broken. If they backslide, we're all going to quit and go play other games REGARDLESS of what they do or don't do on this first pass. It's basically a truism at this point that either CCP maintains these new good iterative habits exemplified by their recent release cycles, or else EVE dies (I've been playing since early 2004, so I know all too well the pain that CCP could but us through if they fall back to their old ways, and exactly how little I'd be willing to tolerate their old behavior at this point :).
ergherhdfgh wrote:I also don't see how "occupancy" is given all that much more than lip service in this blog.
The entire mechanic is overwhelmingly in favor of local occupants. They have every advantage. Local residency becomes a requirement for taking and holding sov. Taking and holding sov no one else wants to live in but you becomes trivial. Taking and holding sov is significantly divorced from cap and supercap fleet sizes, and only the most lucrative sov systems will require cap fleets to take and hold. The whole new mechanic screams occupancy so loudly that people in this thread rightly aren't sure what role capital ships will have in this future EVE.
So there's no question the new mechanic ties sov almost directly to occupancy. What isn't addressed at all is WHY anyone would want to occupy any part of nullsec in the first place. Why would anyone WANT to live in most of nullsec, let alone claim sov there? And we all know there are real issues there that aren't being covered in this pass, for sure. But I'm irrationally hopeful on CCP addressing that sooner than later; maybe by their winter releases. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:10:06 -
[2123] - Quote
This Entosis Link need it's price rised say you make it cost 1 bill I say this is fair as you can take as many systems you want with 1 Entosis Link. And if the ship carrying the Entosis Link get destoyed it still got a chance of being droped, not destoyed as all other sov structores <.<
This is also gone make people fitt it to more tanky ships and not interceptores, making the attackers at least risk something to reinforce a system. Also a ship that fitt a Entosis Link should not be able to cloak and not be nullified so this FLAG SHIP is gone need constant protection. A little bit how we did Freighter protection into null before.
Edit: Also make so you have to be in a station to fitt it, so you can only attack from LOW sec or NPC null. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
674
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:13:46 -
[2124] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:The sovereignty system Fozzie described in the dev blog he wrote is extremely poorly thought and half baked. CCP should just take it back to the drawing board and rethink. Meanwhile, perhaps they would also do well to review their assumptions about EVE players and how they behave and plan their actions in game. I'm going to write more about what I think are the peripheral causes as to why Fozzie and others are constantly failing later. For now, I'd like to elaborate on what I think is the central cause behind the dev team's shortsightedness.
It might be just that the faulty line of thought on the dev team's part is assuming that these poorly designed changes will result in people fighting more. I think they are expecting that they can really change bloc (and individual player) behavior solely through changing rules and mechanics and avoiding touching risk-reward balance.
They are wrong.
For instance, as Arrendis mentioned before, Encounter Surveillance Systems weren't adopted en masse by null residents. They were supposed to create fights. Because they did not see any serious adoption, not many fights were created through them.
Has any developer ever thought about why they weren't adopted by null residents?
More importantly, why is Fozzie's dev blog containing statistics makes him sound like an apologist, or worse, a distressed middle-level executive trying to defend his design through cooking up his numbers, when his plan obviously failed to achieve the intended objectives? If you look at the number carefully, Fozzie is only able to say 'hurray, my plan is doing okay and null sec pvp-related player deaths increased', because Pandemic Legion got bored and decided to farm HERO coalition. I especially laughed out loud and ended up spilling the Turkish coffee I've been sipping when I saw that Deklein region, the place I live in and the revered Goon homeland, has seen PvP related losses decrease by 20% since Phoebe and Jump Fatigue hit. Fozzie isn't just doing a terrible job at re-imagining sovereignty, he is also doing a terrible job at covering his own back so that he and his plan can look good to his immediate superiors who no doubt track his so called progress.
I have said this before when Greyscale announced plans for Phoebe before and I'll say it again;
No amount of change and skewing of sandbox mechanics towards a theme park setting will result in players fighting and causing destruction just for the sake of doing so. People also will not fight and create destruction just so that Fozzie and CCP are appeased and are able to recite statistics without good analysis.
Holding space in null is currently is not worth much for all the effort and resources it takes. Even with these changes, it will still not be worth it.
EVE players will always collaborate, cooperate to minimize risks, and the instances of fights that they do not want to take.
The structures that make up the large entities cannot and will not be dismantled through the change of game play mechanics. You cannot change human behavior and tendency to socialize, cooperate and collude to further mutual goals through introducing ~bright ideas~ like this.
We need developers that are ruthlessly pragmatic and in possesion of first-hand knowledge and experience of life in nullsec to fix nullsec, not developers moonlighting as bright idea fairies that don't know the game and the mechanics they are working on. It's the second type of developers who always end up with introducing Hail Mary plans that are destined to fail like this one. This needs to be reposted again and again.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:15:47 -
[2125] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Alp Khan wrote:The sovereignty system Fozzie described in the dev blog he wrote is extremely poorly thought and half baked. CCP should just take it back to the drawing board and rethink. Meanwhile, perhaps they would also do well to review their assumptions about EVE players and how they behave and plan their actions in game. I'm going to write more about what I think are the peripheral causes as to why Fozzie and others are constantly failing later. For now, I'd like to elaborate on what I think is the central cause behind the dev team's shortsightedness.
It might be just that the faulty line of thought on the dev team's part is assuming that these poorly designed changes will result in people fighting more. I think they are expecting that they can really change bloc (and individual player) behavior solely through changing rules and mechanics and avoiding touching risk-reward balance.
They are wrong.
For instance, as Arrendis mentioned before, Encounter Surveillance Systems weren't adopted en masse by null residents. They were supposed to create fights. Because they did not see any serious adoption, not many fights were created through them.
Has any developer ever thought about why they weren't adopted by null residents?
More importantly, why is Fozzie's dev blog containing statistics makes him sound like an apologist, or worse, a distressed middle-level executive trying to defend his design through cooking up his numbers, when his plan obviously failed to achieve the intended objectives? If you look at the number carefully, Fozzie is only able to say 'hurray, my plan is doing okay and null sec pvp-related player deaths increased', because Pandemic Legion got bored and decided to farm HERO coalition. I especially laughed out loud and ended up spilling the Turkish coffee I've been sipping when I saw that Deklein region, the place I live in and the revered Goon homeland, has seen PvP related losses decrease by 20% since Phoebe and Jump Fatigue hit. Fozzie isn't just doing a terrible job at re-imagining sovereignty, he is also doing a terrible job at covering his own back so that he and his plan can look good to his immediate superiors who no doubt track his so called progress.
I have said this before when Greyscale announced plans for Phoebe before and I'll say it again;
No amount of change and skewing of sandbox mechanics towards a theme park setting will result in players fighting and causing destruction just for the sake of doing so. People also will not fight and create destruction just so that Fozzie and CCP are appeased and are able to recite statistics without good analysis.
Holding space in null is currently is not worth much for all the effort and resources it takes. Even with these changes, it will still not be worth it.
EVE players will always collaborate, cooperate to minimize risks, and the instances of fights that they do not want to take.
The structures that make up the large entities cannot and will not be dismantled through the change of game play mechanics. You cannot change human behavior and tendency to socialize, cooperate and collude to further mutual goals through introducing ~bright ideas~ like this.
We need developers that are ruthlessly pragmatic and in possesion of first-hand knowledge and experience of life in nullsec to fix nullsec, not developers moonlighting as bright idea fairies that don't know the game and the mechanics they are working on. It's the second type of developers who always end up with introducing Hail Mary plans that are destined to fail like this one. This needs to be reposted again and again.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5550640#post5550640
Link to post so people can LIKE it also.
|
SiKong Ma
House of Nim-Lhach Skeleton Crew.
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:18:57 -
[2126] - Quote
Here's my 2 cents of opinion to CCP:
1) Entosis link is OP unless there's a serious speed and range nerf - I suggest rename entosis link a a boarding collar (or launching of boarding parties) and every minute consumes 1 marine and 1 supply/min (or whatever figure CCP can "balance") making the ideal ship to do this job, deep space transports. Ship must be below certain speed to start boarding operations and cargohold limits how long you can sustain a "boarding". So 200 ceptors trying to board, possible but you gotta have a transport supplying you the manpower (and later on you can link with the DUST thingy if you want). Of course the structure itself have a certain number of marines in defence and it can be topped up by defenders if their troopships don't get destroyed (defenders will have the advantage of getting marines in). Initial attack on station will be like a small boarding party to gain information of key locations to strike in system followed by spawning of all those command nodes.
2) All hauling ships armed with boarding collar may not have cloak installed as the boarding collar disrupts with the cloaking ability making them targets to be hunted.
3) Capitals have no role now except to bash moons and POS - with introduction of troop hauling ships, capitals will have a role and dreads gets useful in dropping the caps that tried to kill the troopships (can even consider giving them troop bays so they can board too).
4) Ratters/Industrialists and miners are leechers - well, now they can fly those troop hauling ships making them really valuable assets to defend and those are cheap, let non-combatant be non-combatant, it is their preferred life-style but allow them to contribute.
5) Blitz will be the next meta - well, you can't exactly blitz with just 1 transport ship of troops and those are easy to kill if not properly defended.
6) Where do I get soldiers - planetary interaction (introduce troops training facility and supply factories).
War must include soldiers both in space and on land (or in stations). Fullscale warfare includes supplies and soldiers and if you deny either of those, there's no one to make war or assert control. Also, works well with lore and think of the press value (2,000,000 troops killed and 20 million supply units captured in failed assault by Giraffe Swan on New Cataleya alliance). Anyway, just my fantasy. |
Kilab Gercias
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:19:50 -
[2127] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:
How does a squad of 10 cruisers cover all of providence even with jump bridges? 84 systems? Hot tip you won't cover all systems in even 40 minutes before on system is reffed. To really stop 200 interceptors trying to flip a region like Goons will do, just beccause we get to watch the world burn, you will need 2 or 3 squads of 10 cruisers per constellation. Thats something like a full fleet of cruisers. Both sides running around in space playing wack-a-mole.
Compellimg game play.
Just to understand it the correct way:
Dev Blog: Entosis Links have a significant cycle time (5 minutes for the Tech One variant, 2 minutes for Tech Two) and do not start affecting the battle for control of the target structure until the end of their first cycle.
Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes.
So when the Troll Interceptor from Goon activates his Entosis Link, i got 2 or 5 min time to warp in my sniper and kill the damn Thing bevor he can warp off to the next troll attemp.
So pls goons come to my home sys with 200 ceptors, our snipers are waiting for free kills :)
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:21:34 -
[2128] - Quote
Kah'les wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Alp Khan wrote:The sovereignty system Fozzie described in the dev blog he wrote is extremely poorly thought and half baked. CCP should just take it back to the drawing board and rethink. Meanwhile, perhaps they would also do well to review their assumptions about EVE players and how they behave and plan their actions in game. I'm going to write more about what I think are the peripheral causes as to why Fozzie and others are constantly failing later. For now, I'd like to elaborate on what I think is the central cause behind the dev team's shortsightedness.
It might be just that the faulty line of thought on the dev team's part is assuming that these poorly designed changes will result in people fighting more. I think they are expecting that they can really change bloc (and individual player) behavior solely through changing rules and mechanics and avoiding touching risk-reward balance.
They are wrong.
For instance, as Arrendis mentioned before, Encounter Surveillance Systems weren't adopted en masse by null residents. They were supposed to create fights. Because they did not see any serious adoption, not many fights were created through them.
Has any developer ever thought about why they weren't adopted by null residents?
More importantly, why is Fozzie's dev blog containing statistics makes him sound like an apologist, or worse, a distressed middle-level executive trying to defend his design through cooking up his numbers, when his plan obviously failed to achieve the intended objectives? If you look at the number carefully, Fozzie is only able to say 'hurray, my plan is doing okay and null sec pvp-related player deaths increased', because Pandemic Legion got bored and decided to farm HERO coalition. I especially laughed out loud and ended up spilling the Turkish coffee I've been sipping when I saw that Deklein region, the place I live in and the revered Goon homeland, has seen PvP related losses decrease by 20% since Phoebe and Jump Fatigue hit. Fozzie isn't just doing a terrible job at re-imagining sovereignty, he is also doing a terrible job at covering his own back so that he and his plan can look good to his immediate superiors who no doubt track his so called progress.
I have said this before when Greyscale announced plans for Phoebe before and I'll say it again;
No amount of change and skewing of sandbox mechanics towards a theme park setting will result in players fighting and causing destruction just for the sake of doing so. People also will not fight and create destruction just so that Fozzie and CCP are appeased and are able to recite statistics without good analysis.
Holding space in null is currently is not worth much for all the effort and resources it takes. Even with these changes, it will still not be worth it.
EVE players will always collaborate, cooperate to minimize risks, and the instances of fights that they do not want to take.
The structures that make up the large entities cannot and will not be dismantled through the change of game play mechanics. You cannot change human behavior and tendency to socialize, cooperate and collude to further mutual goals through introducing ~bright ideas~ like this.
We need developers that are ruthlessly pragmatic and in possesion of first-hand knowledge and experience of life in nullsec to fix nullsec, not developers moonlighting as bright idea fairies that don't know the game and the mechanics they are working on. It's the second type of developers who always end up with introducing Hail Mary plans that are destined to fail like this one. This needs to be reposted again and again. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5550640#post5550640 Link to post so people can LIKE it also.
Once again this post brings a bitter tear of joy to my jaded eyes, so eloquently written, so accurate... so slurp away pubbies this is all the tears you will get from me.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:25:46 -
[2129] - Quote
Kilab Gercias wrote:
So pls goons come to my home sys with 200 ceptors, our snipers are waiting for free kills :)
Tell me more of how you defend HIGH sec please.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:26:52 -
[2130] - Quote
Kilab Gercias wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:
How does a squad of 10 cruisers cover all of providence even with jump bridges? 84 systems? Hot tip you won't cover all systems in even 40 minutes before on system is reffed. To really stop 200 interceptors trying to flip a region like Goons will do, just beccause we get to watch the world burn, you will need 2 or 3 squads of 10 cruisers per constellation. Thats something like a full fleet of cruisers. Both sides running around in space playing wack-a-mole.
Compellimg game play.
Just to understand it the correct way: Dev Blog: Entosis Links have a significant cycle time (5 minutes for the Tech One variant, 2 minutes for Tech Two) and do not start affecting the battle for control of the target structure until the end of their first cycle.
Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes.So when the Troll Interceptor from Goon activates his Entosis Link, i got 2 or 5 min time to warp in my sniper and kill the damn Thing bevor he can warp off to the next troll attemp. So pls goons come to my home sys with 200 ceptors, our snipers are waiting for free kills :)
So we find you sitting off the undock sniping at us. Ever seen what 199 interceptor bees do to a sniper who just sniped a fellow bee?
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
567
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:27:17 -
[2131] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:OldWolf69 wrote:Is it just me, or are you trying to tell me that renters will take space? Hiseccers will come to null?
Renters already own the space in all but name only. The moment they don't need to pay for supercap fleet leases, yes, they will take the space in name too. No, hiseccers will not come to null. I never claimed they would. I don't see this doing much to increase the population of null; just to make it somewhat more lively and interesting and engaging for those living there already. That said, a lot of WH corps might come to null. I know ours is considering it. El'Grimm wrote:But I see virtually no actual benefit from this, larger than us entities will simply N+1 us, and smaller entities will troll us so badly it will make the game ****, as we chase trolls who ping timers for a chase. Our new players will get farmed by better players who ping timers, and old players who have dedicated the game time to building up the region are already starting to quit as this change shows them that they are unwanted in this game. I think you are missing a key element here. People currently come to provi for these kinds of fights because it never has a risk of escalating into a supercap sov battle. They pretty much have no other targets ATM that come risk-free like that. Once this change goes live, provi is going to become a lot quieter in general. Why would Goons fly 40j to provi space with their 200-man inty fleet when FA is NEXT DOOR? They no longer have to worry about every single sov skirmish escalating into a supercap structure grinding nightmare war. They can just shoot at FA's border systems while FA shoots at their border systems and get all that same fun combat right at home, without every single conflict escalating into structure grinds and 3 month supercap tidi fights. I agree this change would suck immensely for provi if the status quo of every large alliance day-tripping to provi space to get their pvp fix and in order to just keep harassing you guys remained unchanged. But I honestly believe people will quickly realize that, with supercaps and structure grinds out of the picture, they can have a lot more fun harassing their barely-blue neighbors once again instead. Won't save you guys from Brave though :) you don't get goons, do you
the fact that you think that we find combat fun proves you 100% do not understand us at all
we don't want to engage you in combat
we want you to die |
Tiberus Cesar
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:29:18 -
[2132] - Quote
Honestly go back to the plans and try again CCP, Virtually no risk for the attacker,
A suggestion if you are going to ignore the streams of anti the changes chorus this feedback forum has
You have to make this link like a dd IE they can't move, , warp , cloak, jump or leave system for some very long time period after activation. As an idea for how lone lets make it 30 minutes, oh and it would have to be notification on initial cycle, just like any other sturcture in the game.
Otherwise these changes will be all hail the rise of the troll interceptor,
cheers Tiberus |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1802
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:36:24 -
[2133] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:You are asking CCP to fix an unfixable problem.
Alliances in different TZs cannot meaningfully interact with each other because they aren't online at the same time, not because of anything CCP is or is not doing. Period.
In a game where fun boils down to "interacting with other people in real time", there is basically no way around this. CCP is finally just introducing a mechanic that accepts this basic reality. They cannot magically make AI proxies for the other alliance to play in your TZ to enable your fun. Find people to have fun with that are online roughly when you are. This is actually a good point regarding prime time.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Kilab Gercias
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:37:27 -
[2134] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:
So we find you sitting off the undock sniping at us. Ever seen what 199 interceptor bees do to a sniper who just sniped a fellow bee?
Warp In on Covert Ship,
Activate Guns
Warp out
199 Ceptors starring on Wreck of dead Goon.
Dont get me wrong, 200 Ceptors will get the one Structur into reeeinforce when the Defender dont have 30 - 40 Anticeptor Defense Ships ready. But it will get very interesting when the Capture Event starts and the Ceptors have to split up into the different Systems. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1802
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:37:31 -
[2135] - Quote
Why not allow sov at corp level? You could imagine corps focusing on single constellations only and this would solve the alliance timezone issue.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:40:44 -
[2136] - Quote
SiKong Ma wrote:Here's my 2 cents of opinion to CCP:
1) Entosis link is OP unless there's a serious speed and range nerf - I suggest rename entosis link a a boarding collar (or launching of boarding parties) and every minute consumes 1 marine and 1 supply/min (or whatever figure CCP can "balance") making the ideal ship to do this job, deep space transports. Ship must be below certain speed to start boarding operations and cargohold limits how long you can sustain a "boarding". So 200 ceptors trying to board, possible but you gotta have a transport supplying you the manpower (and later on you can link with the DUST thingy if you want). Of course the structure itself have a certain number of marines in defence and it can be topped up by defenders if their troopships don't get destroyed (defenders will have the advantage of getting marines in). Initial attack on station will be like a small boarding party to gain information of key locations to strike in system followed by spawning of all those command nodes.
2) All hauling ships armed with boarding collar may not have cloak installed as the boarding collar disrupts with the cloaking ability making them targets to be hunted.
3) Capitals have no role now except to bash moons and POS - with introduction of troop hauling ships, capitals will have a role and dreads gets useful in dropping the caps that tried to kill the troopships (can even consider giving them troop bays so they can board too).
4) Ratters/Industrialists and miners are leechers - well, now they can fly those troop hauling ships making them really valuable assets to defend and those are cheap, let non-combatant be non-combatant, it is their preferred life-style but allow them to contribute.
5) Blitz will be the next meta - well, you can't exactly blitz with just 1 transport ship of troops and those are easy to kill if not properly defended.
6) Where do I get soldiers - planetary interaction (introduce troops training facility and supply factories).
War must include soldiers both in space and on land (or in stations). Fullscale warfare includes supplies and soldiers and if you deny either of those, there's no one to make war or assert control. Also, works well with lore and think of the press value (2,000,000 troops killed and 20 million supply units captured in failed assault by Giraffe Swan on New Cataleya alliance). Anyway, just my fantasy.
Unironically this idea actually makes some sense, it works with the lore and isn't as stupidly easy to encourage excess griefing.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:53:01 -
[2137] - Quote
Kilab Gercias wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:
So we find you sitting off the undock sniping at us. Ever seen what 199 interceptor bees do to a sniper who just sniped a fellow bee?
Warp In on Covert Ship, Activate Guns Warp out 199 Ceptors starring on Wreck of dead Goon. Dont get me wrong, 200 Ceptors will get the one Structur into reeeinforce when the Defender dont have 30 - 40 Anticeptor Defense Ships ready. But it will get very interesting when the Capture Event starts and the Ceptors have to split up into the different Systems.
Covops arent sniper's son, except maybe a blops. Good luck getting a blops to track and hit a ceptor at range, whilst the ceptor isdoing 4k m/s
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Kilab Gercias
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:59:32 -
[2138] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Kilab Gercias wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:
So we find you sitting off the undock sniping at us. Ever seen what 199 interceptor bees do to a sniper who just sniped a fellow bee?
Warp In on Covert Ship, Activate Guns Warp out 199 Ceptors starring on Wreck of dead Goon. Dont get me wrong, 200 Ceptors will get the one Structur into reeeinforce when the Defender dont have 30 - 40 Anticeptor Defense Ships ready. But it will get very interesting when the Capture Event starts and the Ceptors have to split up into the different Systems. Covops arent sniper's son, except maybe a blops. Good luck getting a blops to track and hit a ceptor at range, whilst the ceptor isdoing 4k m/s
Dude, the Cov Ops is just the warp in for the snipers. He is already on grid :). Tracking a ceptor 130km out with a Tornado is possible :) |
El'Grimm
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:05:01 -
[2139] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:
I think you are missing a key element here.
I think your missing the point actually.
The current system isn't about just structures, its about politics, meta, allies and attrition among other things. All of the depth we have now is one reason null is fought over so intensely when it does kick off.
You cheapen the tools of war, you cheapen the experience. If you think the same group of thousands of people are going to want to engage in the sov game when the new mechanics scream "lol sov why" you are the one who is mistaken. If these players so wanted skirmish and lol fights they wouldn't be bothered about sov warfare anyway and we'd all be flying in FW, the reason we aren't, because we dont want cheap meaningless pvp that has no practical use, nothing really happens and changes every few days.
Now Im gonna harp on about the inty fleets you so easily dismiss.
First these arent going to be the non combat ships people are joking about, they will likely be combat ceptors, but with more escape speed.
So here it goes, a few hundred turn up to a single region, the few you might kill IF they come through a known pipe is negligable, and thats assuming they dont come via wh, which if you dont know is how all the blocs move en mass now anyway. So, that fleet now spreads out over the whole region engaging every single sov timer within minutes of them arriving, ie literally hundreds of attacks at the same time. The defender, now has approximately 20-30 minutes to effectively destroy all of these ships spread across there single region. The inties will laughably kill any weak defenders or simply outmanouvre and not engage anything with a defence. This attack will be almost zero risk for the attackers, and terrible for the defenders purely because of the number of attacks. And then the cycle begins, for the defender every prime time the same happens, more sov timers will be lost due to the sheer number of attacks, and come 48 hrs after the first strike that number starts increasing by a factor of 5 due to the node spawns, making it even worse. I know someone will go lol yeah you control too much space, uh huh.. well anything smaller will just get rofl-stomped by sheer numbers.
Here is the comedy of it all, assuming the attackers fly with a policy of non engagement, they could in theory take an entire regions sov from a well defended region in a matter of days with practically no actual combat. Sure a few good fights will likely happen, but it wont matter, the sheer lunacy of 1 attacker being able to individually affect sov at first glance seems pretty cool, but this is eve there is NEVER just 1 attacker.
From how I know this will pan out, even a say 99% success rate of catching these attackers is sustained, your still looking at sov structures being lost by the defenders (and seriously by the numbers and the time frame its going to be much much worse than that) and so for the cost of a few hundred ceptors you will destroy billions of isk in assets, for the loss of virtually nothing.
And to emphasize this even more, thats one region with just a few hundred ceptors, by bloc participation, cfc could pull this same trick on 10 regions simultaneously, N3 6/7, PL 2/3 etc etc.
The only defense I can possible see working against this attack is NOT a responce, that would simply be too slow, but actually having constant on guard defense fleets. Spread already waiting on every sov structure spread over the whole region. And if guarding for a potential invasion that may or may not happen, every day, every prime time, holidays or whatever. If this is ccp's idea of fun engaging dynamic game play then they can go do one. And of course if you Do go to the trouble of actively spreading out your fleet to all constellations, well they are just gonna blap each small pocket one at a time, then continue anyway.
We arent a mega bloc, compared to them we are small, compact and highly populated, this scheme has no apeal to anyone who currently holds sov, why do you think some of the biggest proponents of this are PL :)
After these changes, sure the super blocs are gonna probably shrink, but I think EVERY other null entity is gonna get wiped of the map at least once, and I'm guessing they wont just leave null but will leave the game as the epic scale of null that brings them here, will be lost to cheap skirmishes and even more pointless sov than it is now.
Damnit one day I will learn to summarize rather than ramble/rant.
|
flapie 2
Planetary Traders Union
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:09:32 -
[2140] - Quote
Hmmm it was a long read, and im still not quite sure what to think. I have been part of some of the most memorable events in Null history (the first ever Titan (good ol Steve :nostalgic:) one of the first ever build outposts), and been part of making those things possible in PvP as well as logistics and mining/PvE. After that how ever its swiftly became clear to me that no matter how much time we sunk into big projects like that, there was always the risk of getting a BTTH (witch in ASCN case came rather swift and in a somewhat questionable way (both creative ways of game-play as well as simple abuse of mechanics)).
All bs set aside though, i liked every aspect of it, and even more so i like the idea of making a certain area of Null sec more deffendable and more of a permanent home for your alliance. We asked for a few things back then, witch lead into the whole SOV POS warefare thing, witch was a big turn off to me since they had a considerable amount of EHP. We also asked for destroyable and build-able stargate (and taxable) witch i think jump bridge are a iteration of, witch again isnt quite what some player expected of it and deff not in the time span we would have like to see those things happen. The idea of having gate guns simular to Empire once has never been touched on, but was also once of the ideas mentioned back then (all of the above were listed in a DEV blog as ideas CCP would like to work on/with).
Ever since the only thing we have seen so far is more effort in terms of grinding down things with a large amount of EHP (witch is been in debate for quite some time now), and never has there been any real effort put into making a certain part of space truely your own. The only thing you could really get out of NULL up to the exploration updates (and even more so after that tbh) is PvE isk grinding in anoms and PvP (not counting moon goo for obvious reasons), that prity much sums up any reason why i would even want to go there at all. The rest i can do just fine in High/Low-sec with little more effort and risk despite the growth of gankers in those areas.
Now as much as i like some of the ideas mentioned here, its sounds a whole lot like a capture the flag event making SOV holding and taking more of a coin flipping event that happens within a certain time-zone that you as an alliance set. I dont quite see yet how this is supposed to fun in any kind of way, nor rewarding for effort/time that has been put into taking/holding said space.
Just as small example of what im trying to aim at here: - Moving things from point A to B took time/effort and a small fleet to get done save and quickly, now its done by jump capable ships and alt accounts even with the latest changes i don't see much changes here at all. (with moving things i mean either from station to outpost for reff rates, or from null to low to empire for sales or supplies).
Ever since the change into POS SOV and prity much every thing that came after it, has been a big turn down for me to even attempt to go there, and the last trip i made there was rather short full of arguments and mainly consisted of grinding EHP's down when not roaming and playing cat and mouse with fleets that never ended up engaging each other ending up doing over 50 to 100 jumps in a sub-cap fleet coming back with a stressed out fleet comm leading into more discussions and arguments. I dont see this being any different in any alliance, especially then you come back to a system that is being afk-cloacky camped because NPC kills went true the roof out of shear boredom.
With these changes i don't see how that is going to change much, you'll be chasing ghosts/timer events, with still no real reason to even hold space aside from moon goo. There is no way to really improve that part of space, increase it protection or make other professions worth while. You'll be forcing both the offenders as well as the defenders to operate in certain time-zones being set by the high-chiefs of the alliance, so you can either participate or read about it in alliance mails because its not your prime-time. Or you'll be forced to make you own alliance and try to recruit enough members in that time-zone to be able to take and defend space that doesn't have a whole lot of value to begin with.
I know that how things were they will never be, since the first Titan has already been build, outpost have already been placed on most important parts of space (if not all). But i miss the times where time and effort where needed and rewarded for both holding and taking space, when small roams where still fun and every once in while still had some good fights in it. Atm everything in EVE not only Null seems to rotate around the Grief/Gank and shear outnumbering of the enemy, rather then having good fights and earning respect true those fights. Unless CCP starts to notice and address these issues not much will change, making SOV a Time-Zone based capture the flag event sure as hell aint going to contribute to solving those issues.
In short where are all the good things CCP had planned, like system wide astroid belts, build-able and desctutable/taxable gates, gate guns and all the other goodies mentioned back in the day when Null was still special ?
Sorry for any signs of the bitter vet virus and or typo issues, but i find most of this to be quite a joke, and not a very good joke tbh.
*and sorry for the long read and edit to filter out some typos* |
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:12:22 -
[2141] - Quote
Kilab Gercias wrote: Dude, the Cov Ops is just the warp in for the snipers. He is already on grid :). Tracking a ceptor 130km out with a Tornado is possible :)
Nah. With a tornado it isn't. Snipe HACs or T3s with remote tracking support are very much fine though. Also smartbombs on gates. |
Kilab Gercias
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:15:34 -
[2142] - Quote
The real Problem at the Momen in Sov Warfare is that the normal Grunt in the Allie has to wait for the FCs to Show up. I cannt just take a Dread/mom/Titan whatever and help his alliance. He has to wait for Commands/Intel (he dont has)/ 20 - 30 other Dudes for Back up. In this System 2 - 5 Pilots are enough to do something, nothing big but a small contribituion to Sov Warfare will be possible. In the current system you just can do large things and thats the Problem. 0 or 1 (all), its not possible to do 0,01 or 0,02 (Baby Steps) to get to the Goal.
Sure big numbers will still help and the big Coaltion will still exist after the Change, but there will be People to Claim sov in one or two Systems. And thats the hole Point about the new System.
No Longer all or nothing, every Alliance can get some bread Crumbs from the big Cake 0.0 is
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:15:44 -
[2143] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kilab Gercias wrote: Dude, the Cov Ops is just the warp in for the snipers. He is already on grid :). Tracking a ceptor 130km out with a Tornado is possible :)
Nah. With a tornado it isn't. Snipe HACs or T3s with remote tracking support are very much fine though. Also smartbombs on gates.
All these high sec people.. so if you live in null sec you gone sit 28 hours each week with your smartbomb and tornado to stop people from harassing you... |
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:16:36 -
[2144] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kilab Gercias wrote: Dude, the Cov Ops is just the warp in for the snipers. He is already on grid :). Tracking a ceptor 130km out with a Tornado is possible :)
Nah. With a tornado it isn't. Snipe HACs or T3s with remote tracking support are very much fine though. Also smartbombs on gates.
What he said. It also doesn't really achieve anything much in terms of stopping the bees and if you really try too hard with a proper sniper watch the trolllolol 10mn Svipul get brought in. Good luck doojng anything but whining about that.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:26:08 -
[2145] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: I'll also probably be quickly spinning off a discussion of the module balance surrounding the Entosis Link, since that's an area where I expect we can calm some fears relatively easily. The short version is that we have all the tools of EVE's module design at our disposal to ensure that no specific tactics get out of hand. So if problems show up in discussion and playtesting we're happy to let players try to find a counter and then relatively easily step in if that counter doesn't materialize.
couple ideas to address the ease in which a small alliance could lose their system: - A stacking penalty in conjunction with inhibiting the ships movement/preventing cloaking while active might be good. - Restricting the module to a range in hull size, such as to BC class. You want it easy, but that easy?
An alliance's prime time is critical to this being successful. Sure, it may be inconvenient for an attacker, but given people do not live and breathe in the EVE universe they still have families, jobs, and simple biological necessities like sleep to deal with. "Sorry boss, I have to take the day off to protect my Sov." just does not cut it. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:26:55 -
[2146] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote: All these high sec people.. so if you live in null sec you gone sit 28 hours each week with your smartbomb and tornado to stop people from harassing you...
No, why? Do you show up with a full wrecking ball fleet to every reinforced PoS? Or do you just sit docked up in your station during your prime time while enemy roam outside is killing SBUs or disabling station services just to harass you and get a fight?
As an active space owner all you have to do is cap beacons no more than some 2-4 times slower than the enemy and possibly gather up some responce fleet in half an hour.
Miner Hottie wrote: What he said. It also doesn't really achieve anything much in terms of stopping the bees and if you really try too hard with a proper sniper watch the trolllolol 10mn Svipul get brought in. Good luck doojng anything but whining about that.
I've actually ran the numbers and DPS graphs yesterday on the possible sneaky offenders (including fully linked 10mn T3 dessies OFC) and medium gun sized snipe counters (because large guns won't do for this job) . So no, 10mn svipul is counterable too. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:33:11 -
[2147] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kah'Les wrote: All these high sec people.. so if you live in null sec you gone sit 28 hours each week with your smartbomb and tornado to stop people from harassing you...
No, why? Do you show up with a full wrecking ball fleet to every reinforced PoS? Or do you just sit docked up in your station during your prime time while enemy roam outside is killing SBUs or disabling station services just to harass you and get a fight? As an active space owner all you have to do is cap beacons no more than some 2-4 times slower than the enemy and possibly gather up some responce fleet in half an hour.
Please just read the dev blog all over again and come back when you understood it.
The whole thing is that right now one guy alone can't go and shot a SBU and promt a whole allaince to reacte to him. With this changes anyone that want to griefe can go out and promt a respons fleet and then just leave without any consequance. Then go and do it again 10 jumps away and rinse and repeat. That you have no understand of how risk aversing works is pretty anyoing. |
Trii Seo
715
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:34:57 -
[2148] - Quote
El'Grimm wrote:[quote=Lena Lazair] You cheapen the tools of war, you cheapen the experience. If you think the same group of thousands of people are going to want to engage in the sov game when the new mechanics scream "lol sov why" you are the one who is mistaken. If these players so wanted skirmish and lol fights they wouldn't be bothered about sov warfare anyway and we'd all be flying in FW, the reason we aren't, because we dont want cheap meaningless pvp that has no practical use, nothing really happens and changes every few days.
This.
Even if the system were to work well, it really will not magically cause more fights. Beyond the fact that there's no reason to launch a sov war, the new system rewards hunkering down in your region and not launching a war because the moment you invade someone, someone else can slip in and create a pile of timers.
Hell, it doesn't take launching an invasion to do so... taking your alliance mates on a slosh op for a few hours may result in you coming back to see a reinforced region. The system effectively promotes less PvP, less fighting, less bloodshed and more gatecamping for frigates with entosis modules. It promotes smaller sov-holders having to spend their prime time watching out for a single pilot that may be somewhere instead of actually looking for trouble.
But it's "Power to the people!" and "Small gang heaven!" you may say. Don't worry - the Malcanis' Law is here in full strength. Just silence your "grrr!" for a minute and think about it: who has the organization to keep indexes of a region high and the manpower to have a standing defense fleet against button-hunters as well as many "incursion" fleets that would be launched into hostile space to create timers everywhere they can?
Also, weaponized boredom - this system doesn't get rid of it. This system just gives it to the other side not just in one but two flavors - creating timers and not showing up for them, so simply trolling and forcing a hostile group to remain in the region and not go out roaming/fighting because you may reinforce their stuff.
Viva la revolution!
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:40:44 -
[2149] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote: The whole thing is that right now one guy alone can't go and shot a SBU and promt a whole allaince to reacte to him. With this changes anyone that want to griefe can go out and promt a respons fleet and then just leave without any consequance. Then go and do it again 10 jumps away and rinse and repeat. That you have no understand of how risk aversing works is pretty anyoing.
Then don't respond to him. Tomorrow he will have to return and do this **** again. To achieve any meaningful result he has to do up to 4 and a little times more work than you have do to negate his efforts. The question is - who's harassing who. |
Eryn Velasquez
98
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:41:45 -
[2150] - Quote
The skill "Infomorph Psychology" can be learned by trial accounts. This must be changed, or we'll see a flood of trials swarming over the sov-holders.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
580
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:44:36 -
[2151] - Quote
The proposed Entosis Link gameplay is pretty meh. Everyone who has one turns it on - everyone else targets them, hits F1, and business as usual. Whoever has the last Link running, wins.
It would be far more interesting if the contest between two opposing Entosis Links involved some sort of player-vs-player contest - perhaps a two-player, upgraded version of the hacking mini-game (which is also long overdue for an upgrade).
The winner goes on to play against the next opposing Entosis Link player in the queue, until one side runs out of Entosis Link players.
And, since the Entosis Link is some sort of mind-machine interface, losing the mini-game match should result in the loser's ship & pod blowing up (SP loss, too, like strat cruisers? Nah, probably too extreme).
While the Entosis Link battle is going on, supporting fleets can be picking off opposing players in the queue. The two players actually engaged in Entosis Link battle could be immune to outside damage during the match, or not. There are pros and cons to both approaches.
An alternative to the single queue would be to pair up all opposing players with Entosis Links, to play the 1-v-1 version of the mini-game simultaneously. The winners go on to play against the winners on the opposing side, until one side runs out of Entosis Link players.
Anyways, just an off-the-wall suggestion....
... and apologies if this has already been suggested. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:46:58 -
[2152] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kah'Les wrote: The whole thing is that right now one guy alone can't go and shot a SBU and promt a whole allaince to reacte to him. With this changes anyone that want to griefe can go out and promt a respons fleet and then just leave without any consequance. Then go and do it again 10 jumps away and rinse and repeat. That you have no understand of how risk aversing works is pretty anyoing.
Then don't respond to him. Tomorrow he will have to return and do this **** again. To achieve any meaningful result he has to do up to 4 and a little times more work than you have do to negate his efforts. The question is - who's harassing who.
It's 1 timer and then he can take SOV... comn man read the ******* DEV blog before you start sperging your **** all over this place. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:51:56 -
[2153] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:[It's 1 timer and then he can take SOV... comn man read the ******* DEV blog before you start sperging your **** all over this place. He has to come 2 times. First time to put **** into reinforce. Second time he has to jump all over the constellation to win the structure, and you sure as hell will be notified. Basically your structures are automatically put into the first reinforce each day with the timer set to your prime time. The difference being you don't have to rep them back up if nobody comes to shoot them. And you don't have to grind endeless SBUs and hold black mesas around them while they online. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:56:36 -
[2154] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kah'Les wrote:[It's 1 timer and then he can take SOV... comn man read the ******* DEV blog before you start sperging your **** all over this place. He has to come 2 times. First time to put **** into reinforce. Second time he has to jump all over the constellation to win the structure, and you sure as hell will be notified. Basically your structures are automatically put into the first reinforce each day with the timer set to your prime time. The difference being you don't have to rep them back up if nobody comes to shoot them. And you don't have to grind endeless SBUs and hold black mesas around them while they online.
Scratch everything I'm not gone discusse how useless cheap this whole mechanic is anymore. And how it's gone lower the value of 10 years of conflicts that gone on in null sec. |
Gorgof Intake
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
56
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:01:10 -
[2155] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kah'Les wrote: The whole thing is that right now one guy alone can't go and shot a SBU and promt a whole allaince to reacte to him. With this changes anyone that want to griefe can go out and promt a respons fleet and then just leave without any consequance. Then go and do it again 10 jumps away and rinse and repeat. That you have no understand of how risk aversing works is pretty anyoing.
Then don't respond to him. Tomorrow he will have to return and do this **** again. To achieve any meaningful result he has to do up to 4 and a little times more work than you have do to negate his efforts. The question is - who's harassing who. It's 1 timer and then he can take SOV... comn man read the ******* DEV blog before you start sperging your **** all over this place.
From what im reading, the defenders actually have the advantage on uncontested nodes.
Yes, a single entity could come along and put your system/ TCU into "Command node spawn" mode but it would take 3 duders half the time it took him to reset the contest.
See the thing is, I suspect that vast amounts of space will remain "contested" but not actually being 'assaulted' if that makes sense. I am sure there could be some mechanic introduced where, at alliance level, a bounty could be paid to a line member for capping one of these sites, thereby introducing a new form of income. I mean, its like 5min or something isnt it?
If you are using the space you will see this anom pop up, warp to it and cap it. Job done. Someone else ratting next door or whatever can do the same for their system.
I think people are really just going into massive panic mode on this. To initiate a contest seems very easy. But to take Sov that is actively patroled and defended I think is going to be a lot harder.
ALSO WE STILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FITTING REQUIREMENTS THIS THING HAS!
Chances are, someone that wants to 'troll sov' has to do it in something a bit more catchable and bigger than a ceptor. Which should mean your rapid defense of your system should make a fight out of the initial engagement.
Some Thoughts on Sov Mechanics
DEADPACKS: Alternative Sov Mechanic
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6557
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:01:52 -
[2156] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:I'm giving up if CCP want to ruin SOV warfare I will let them. But vince draken needs you to end the evil cfc's 0.0 dream
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6557
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:03:02 -
[2157] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:I am sure there could be some mechanic introduced where, at alliance level, a bounty could be paid to a line member for capping one of these sites, thereby introducing a new form of income. I mean, its like 5min or something isnt it? We can call these Lawlsov Points, or LP for short.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:03:12 -
[2158] - Quote
Yes, and we can all fly around in interceptores all day long hunting command nodes. Sounds so fun. /sarcasem |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:04:51 -
[2159] - Quote
All the theorycrafting surrounding interceptors of doom are pretty funny, and either a lot are trolling really hard or they lack the ability to understand other types of eve gameplay. Of course some players will exploit the system to grief others, after all this is EVE!
Structures, be it POS in Sov 1.x or TCU, I-HUB, Station, SBU's in Sov 2.x are frakking boring as hell. Even in a Nyx it was boring as hell after the first time. Being allowed to actually use my Nyx while in CFC was almost impossible unless to shoot at structures. The old sov mechanics only allowed for 1 type of gameplay and path to victory. Given how many of the established null power blocks who think the change is terrible is disturbing. Are they all so set in their ways that they cannot see nullsec from any other perspective? Its an honest and open question, are they really that blind to other ways than what it has been?
I do support the nullbloc proposal of viable npc nullsec in all regions but given how ridiculously empty most of null usually is there is room for so many more. A lot of smaller groups who have lived in null and would like to go back will now have a realistic possibility under these mechanics.
Ofc certain SIG's in CFC, and probably other similar entities in other coalitions, will use the mechanics to griefe. But in each instance there is a chance for combat, whereas todays mechanics pretty much makes sure there is just x minutes/hours of shooting a structure or nothing happening at all.
|
Anthar Thebess
947
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:05:26 -
[2160] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote: Please just read the dev blog all over again and come back when you understood it.
The whole thing is that right now one guy alone can't go and shot a SBU and promt a whole allaince to reacte to him. With this changes anyone that want to griefe can go out and promt a respons fleet and then just leave without any consequance. Then go and do it again 10 jumps away and rinse and repeat. That you have no understaning of how risk aversing works is pretty anyoing.
There will be no issue in this, as after those changes you need to be few jumps away in order to react. Vast renter empires? 10 groups 4 man in each and you have 20 systems reinforced each day.
Yes at the beginning it will be harassing those who over reached them self. Sov in multiple regions? To many blue that provided F1 numbers? Some people will be having hard time before they finally let it go.
Then eve will become really fun game. Some insight into my back yard, yours also. We want to take back esoteria, to put there again our flag - after those changes we don't want whole, just the part that we can manage 1-2 constellations. All talks are not about how to evict all those alliances that live in our space , but how to keep them there. We don't want tons of space , current situation where we can have nice fight after just few jumps is good. But when you can get the same doing again few jumps into multiple directions - this is perfect. I start to see ghosts , people that left eve years ago are slowly popping up on forum, TS , they will return when those changes will happen.
Prime time - CCP needs to work on this. In the current form multi national alliances will slowly start to fall apart, even if they are not big. Some space will be almost always secured because some people live in totally different TZ than all other alliances in the region.
My suggestion make prime time moment where systems are most vulnerable. Outside this prime time systems that have indexes lower than total 3 are also vulnerable , but effectiveness of those capture modules is 10 times reduced , additionally it cannot be used on some installations.
So Index A + Index B + Index C <3 You need to use this capture module to disable some station service or ihub is around 150minutes.
This way people in all Timezones will be having fun.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
|
Siggy Afuklrang
ROC Academy ROC.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:05:44 -
[2161] - Quote
Well here's an idea to fairly balance out the troll ceptor but keeping all the good things in the dev blog.
Introduce two new modules and copy the existing patterns in EVE of linking benefits to cost, opening a range of tactical options.
To explain, imagine we had two modules the Estorus module and Estorus array.
The Estorus Module has a fitting cost of 10 power grid and range of 25km.
In contrast the Estorus Array takes 1000 power grid to fit but offers a range of 160km.
This means that range options are more applicable to larger class ships, how ever larger class ships now have two options to fit the closer range module with no real cost to fitting there ship for combat or fit for range with the array but on doing so seriously compromise there combat effect, thus making them more reliant on their support.
In addition the array and module should have the following effects when activated to balance their use.
Both module and array stop the ship from warping while activated
Both module and array stop the host ship from receiving remote repairs when active
Both module and array increase the ship signature radius by 15m, thus making the use of cheap small hulls come with some compromise
Both module and array infer a bonus to sensor strength of 20, countering the ecm spam
The array only takes 25% longer to take a node/structure
The array only infers a 30% resistance bonus to shield and armour when active. Increased fitting has some benefit especially on caps
Both modules infer a reduction in speed to take a node when fitted to a capital ship. So yes I could fit my super with an array and gain 30% res but also an increased exposure time to danger.
The numbers used maybe a little arbitary and need balancing. But the concept is to make more tactical options from the module and array. Specifically to encourage fight mechanics and not ninja mechanics.
Final points the module and array in T1 versions cost 30mil, with the T2 versions costing 80m but inferring a 20% range bonus and reduced cycle time, although they should still take nodes at the same speed as the T1 variants. I.e they can deactivate quicker if needs be. |
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
495
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:07:01 -
[2162] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough. Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already. 5 man fleet. 2 Interceptors, 1 Covop cyno, 2 Blackops. Interceptors with E-Link start working on a structure, Sniper warps in to shoot them down, Covop lights up and Blackops jump in, Sniper dead. Bring multiple snipers? Interceptors jump over a few systems and start again. Catch Sniper ships as they try to move around to keep up with interceptors.
In this scenario you assume that a sniper would jump on there alone, nope it jumps there to bait those black ops -> 2 dead black ops -> 2 dead ceptors and a very dead cov ops cyno ship. It's no rocket science now if that alliance actually has only one sniper BS in the system in prime time zone then they shouldn't be holding that space in the first place since they obviously lack the man power to do so.
But keep on with this ceptor thing and we eventually end up with a "cyno" or "siege" type solution which might not be a bad thing. However from what I read actually reinforcing the thing does nothing, you have to come back later to to finish the job so likely they don't even bother with your ceptor until then. |
Gorgof Intake
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:08:31 -
[2163] - Quote
Everyone just needs to chill and wait out for more info on the actual fitting requirements and adjustments that will inevitably be made to this.
Stop splurging on like autistic children. Sheesh. Decent observations are getting lost in the absolute drivel you people have spewed forth about trollceptor fleets, CFC posturing and ~the end of supercaptials~.
Guys, its still months away from implementation and there WILL be adjustments. Just chill. Its not the end of the world. Its a good step in the right direction and with a bit (a lot?) of spit and polish this will be a marked improvement on the current status quo of sitting on a titan and gaining perfect intel over the enemy before standing down for yet another blueball OP.
Relax people. Relax.
Some Thoughts on Sov Mechanics
DEADPACKS: Alternative Sov Mechanic
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:11:42 -
[2164] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:Everyone just needs to chill and wait out for more info on the actual fitting requirements and adjustments that will inevitably be made to this.
Stop splurging on like autistic children. Sheesh. Decent observations are getting lost in the absolute drivel you people have spewed forth about trollceptor fleets, CFC posturing and ~the end of supercaptials~.
Guys, its still months away from implementation and there WILL be adjustments. Just chill. Its not the end of the world. Its a good step in the right direction and with a bit (a lot?) of spit and polish this will be a marked improvement on the current status quo of sitting on a titan and gaining perfect intel over the enemy before standing down for yet another blueball OP.
Relax people. Relax.
Well said! |
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:14:13 -
[2165] - Quote
I see a little chance that this sov capture system will not be misused for harassment (like afk cloaking). The aggressor has to pay the structure/system fee beginning with the first second of the first! reinforce. This has to be taken from the their corp wallet. If this won't be paid there will be no reinforce.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
685
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:14:45 -
[2166] - Quote
Anyone doing this as a small group understand from the start that you are going to have some large group come in and flip your sov because, well because they can. Of course a proper attack is not going to be easy to stop and you might have to let your sov go and then grab it back, which is all good as long as you go in light, its the IHUB which is the issue, I will come back to that.
The target system has perhaps an icebelt and a number of belts and is between -0.01 to -0.3, do not expect anything better, it is likely not to have a station in it and if it does then expect that to be defended.
The first thing you have to do is get your system, start off with interceptors and see if you can flip it, no response your good, if someone defends it then you have to start your campaign, this will be continuous attacks wearing them down, if it is a system held by one of the sprawling alliances its likely that you will wear them down. Unless CCP listens to those that want to make you fit these things in Titans and make them cost 20bn, being sarcastic there but what ho. The thing about the troll griefing attitude is that they want to make them expensive as hell so people do not try, like the SBU's are now. CCP your current pricing is fine. You commit to rf'ing the system which you do perhaps by using a marauder backed by a fleet, your call on doing that based on the tactical situation.
Next up comes the command node stage, this will require a fleet and effort, you could do so with allies and mercs. Once that is done you have your system.
TCU make sure you have a death star 50 km from the TCU, that is your first defence against Goons and their interceptor fleets, I would just sit there shooting interceptors giggling to myself, that will be fun as I have all my characters able to run POS gunes. One comes in with a T2 Entosis link, just get an interceptor and a Munin and bang, dead interceptor, or perhaps a Tornado poking out of the shield. Done, so much for Interceptors. We all know what this is going to mean, the POS will be the defence point of the small entity.
Now if the Goons seriously want to waste interceptors and add green to my KB feel free I will laugh myself silly.
If someone comes for your system seriously then you will have to defend it, the key part is that even if you lose you can still keep at it, it might not mean much to them but this is your turf so you harass the hell out of them, then it becomes a question of willpower and assets, allies and mercs, all fun parts of Eve.
The IHUB, this is key and its CCP's call whether you have to put it next to another POS or the same one where the TCU is. This is a major question along with the IHUB itself, if you need a freighter to move an IHUB then your space is not going to be worth much and if you have it at a planet as it is now you will not be able to defend it easily. So for the truly small guy you wait until you have numbers to be able to defend it with a fleet. Question to CCP, are you going to keep the IHUB at its present size as well as the upgrades? And will it stay at the planet location only?
If CCP make the difference to the system based on use move to a max of -0.3 in truesec they will make it worth doing, think very carefully on that next part.
The TZ aspect is so important for vulnerability and CCP is right to do this, thought the idea of scaling with alliance size is a good one, or perhaps allowing different TZ's per constellation.
People talk about caps and no longer being useful, well simple, the POS is key, Dreads will have a role and by the fact of them being used will be something that means the other larger toys will get used.
There will be so many people that will come in and poke you with a stick, but your POS is the centre of your defence.
So when the Goons talk about interceptor fleets I was laughing hard at them because the TCU will be next to a POS, its their sprawling empire of unused systems that is undefended against interceptors not the small guy who really wants the system.
Check mate!!!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6351
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:27:59 -
[2167] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Anyone doing this as a small group understand from the start that you are going to have some large group come in and flip your sov because, well because they can. Of course a proper attack is not going to be easy to stop and you might have to let your sov go and then grab it back, which is all good as long as you go in light, its the IHUB which is the issue, I will come back to that.
The target system has perhaps an icebelt and a number of belts and is between -0.01 to -0.3, do not expect anything better, it is likely not to have a station in it and if it does then expect that to be defended.
The first thing you have to do is get your system, start off with interceptors and see if you can flip it, no response your good, if someone defends it then you have to start your campaign, this will be continuous attacks wearing them down, if it is a system held by one of the sprawling alliances its likely that you will wear them down. Unless CCP listens to those that want to make you fit these things in Titans and make them cost 20bn, being sarcastic there but what ho. The thing about the troll griefing attitude is that they want to make them expensive as hell so people do not try, like the SBU's are now. CCP your current pricing is fine. You commit to rf'ing the system which you do perhaps by using a marauder backed by a fleet, your call on doing that based on the tactical situation.
Next up comes the command node stage, this will require a fleet and effort, you could do so with allies and mercs. Once that is done you have your system.
TCU make sure you have a death star 50 km from the TCU, that is your first defence against Goons and their interceptor fleets, I would just sit there shooting interceptors giggling to myself, that will be fun as I have all my characters able to run POS guns. One comes in with a T2 Entosis link, just get an interceptor and a Munin and bang, dead interceptor, or perhaps a Tornado poking out of the shield. Done, so much for Interceptors. We all know what this is going to mean, the POS will be the defence point of the small entity.
Now if the Goons seriously want to waste interceptors and add green to my KB feel free I will laugh myself silly.
If someone comes for your system seriously then you will have to defend it, the key part is that even if you lose you can still keep at it, it might not mean much to them but this is your turf so you harass the hell out of them, then it becomes a question of willpower and assets, allies and mercs, all fun parts of Eve.
The IHUB, this is key and its CCP's call whether you have to put it next to another POS or the same one where the TCU is. This is a major question along with the IHUB itself, if you need a freighter to move an IHUB then your space is not going to be worth much and if you have it at a planet as it is now you will not be able to defend it easily. So for the truly small guy you wait until you have numbers to be able to defend it with a fleet. Question to CCP, are you going to keep the IHUB at its present size as well as the upgrades? And will it stay at the planet location only?
If CCP make the difference to the system based on use move to a max of -0.3 in truesec they will make it worth doing, think very carefully on that next part.
The TZ aspect is so important for vulnerability and CCP is right to do this, thought the idea of scaling with alliance size is a good one, or perhaps allowing different TZ's per constellation.
People talk about caps and no longer being useful, well simple, the POS is key, Dreads will have a role and by the fact of them being used will be something that means the other larger toys will get used.
There will be so many people that will come in and poke you with a stick, but your POS is the centre of your defence.
So when the Goons talk about interceptor fleets I was laughing hard at them because the TCU will be next to a POS, its their sprawling empire of unused systems that is undefended against interceptors not the small guy who really wants the system.
Check mate!!!
The goon argument then ultimately boils down to "but...but... muh renter empire"
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
257
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:34:36 -
[2168] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:From what im reading, the defenders actually have the advantage on uncontested nodes.
Strictly speaking, whoever is hitting the node uncontested has the advantage on uncontested nodes.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30761
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:36:19 -
[2169] - Quote
If you want to hear Mittens speak about Sov and breaking down the enemy with exhaustive threats of invasion, find a recording of his EVE Vegas 2012 presentation. Then relate that to how easy it is to present a credible threat with this Entosis laser. Then come back and read what Aryth, Querns, Arrendis, and Gevlon have said in this thread.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:36:38 -
[2170] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Alp Khan wrote:The sovereignty system Fozzie described in the dev blog he wrote is extremely poorly thought and half baked. CCP should just take it back to the drawing board and rethink. Meanwhile, perhaps they would also do well to review their assumptions about EVE players and how they behave and plan their actions in game. I'm going to write more about what I think are the peripheral causes as to why Fozzie and others are constantly failing later. For now, I'd like to elaborate on what I think is the central cause behind the dev team's shortsightedness.
It might be just that the faulty line of thought on the dev team's part is assuming that these poorly designed changes will result in people fighting more. I think they are expecting that they can really change bloc (and individual player) behavior solely through changing rules and mechanics and avoiding touching risk-reward balance.
They are wrong.
For instance, as Arrendis mentioned before, Encounter Surveillance Systems weren't adopted en masse by null residents. They were supposed to create fights. Because they did not see any serious adoption, not many fights were created through them.
Has any developer ever thought about why they weren't adopted by null residents?
More importantly, why is Fozzie's dev blog containing statistics makes him sound like an apologist, or worse, a distressed middle-level executive trying to defend his design through cooking up his numbers, when his plan obviously failed to achieve the intended objectives? If you look at the number carefully, Fozzie is only able to say 'hurray, my plan is doing okay and null sec pvp-related player deaths increased', because Pandemic Legion got bored and decided to farm HERO coalition. I especially laughed out loud and ended up spilling the Turkish coffee I've been sipping when I saw that Deklein region, the place I live in and the revered Goon homeland, has seen PvP related losses decrease by 20% since Phoebe and Jump Fatigue hit. Fozzie isn't just doing a terrible job at re-imagining sovereignty, he is also doing a terrible job at covering his own back so that he and his plan can look good to his immediate superiors who no doubt track his so called progress.
I have said this before when Greyscale announced plans for Phoebe before and I'll say it again;
No amount of change and skewing of sandbox mechanics towards a theme park setting will result in players fighting and causing destruction just for the sake of doing so. People also will not fight and create destruction just so that Fozzie and CCP are appeased and are able to recite statistics without good analysis.
Holding space in null is currently is not worth much for all the effort and resources it takes. Even with these changes, it will still not be worth it.
EVE players will always collaborate, cooperate to minimize risks, and the instances of fights that they do not want to take.
The structures that make up the large entities cannot and will not be dismantled through the change of game play mechanics. You cannot change human behavior and tendency to socialize, cooperate and collude to further mutual goals through introducing ~bright ideas~ like this.
We need developers that are ruthlessly pragmatic and in possesion of first-hand knowledge and experience of life in nullsec to fix nullsec, not developers moonlighting as bright idea fairies that don't know the game and the mechanics they are working on. It's the second type of developers who always end up with introducing Hail Mary plans that are destined to fail like this one. This needs to be reposted again and again.
Well said. Spot on.
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
815
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:38:24 -
[2171] - Quote
This thread is literally FULL of people **** scared of logging in and living in THEIR space.
It would be funny if it was not such a damning and tragic indictment of the state of sov null.
Yup, systems should support more people, that's fine.
There's a disgusting amount of pressure from certain areas to push this away as fast and as hard as possible. That alone tells me this is going in the right direction. The outrage that people might have to DEFEND what they OWN for a mere 4 hours per day at a time of THEIR choosing is disgusting.
The large sprawling entities have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - stay on the path, CCP. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
257
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:42:59 -
[2172] - Quote
afkalt wrote:This thread is literally FULL of people **** scared of logging in and living in THEIR space.
It would be funny if it was not such a damning and tragic indictment of the state of sov null.
Yup, systems should support more people, that's fine.
There's a disgusting amount of pressure from certain areas to push this away as fast and as hard as possible. That alone tells me this is going in the right direction. The outrage that people might have to DEFEND what they OWN for a mere 4 hours per day at a time of THEIR choosing is disgusting.
The large sprawling entities have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - stay on the path, CCP.
I live in my space. I rat, mine, and conduct industry in my space. The CFC on the whole does. Really, look at the track records of the people posting in this thread and where they were on siphons, ESS, sentry drones, and other changes, and whether or not those changes played out closer to CCP's predictions, or those of the people who were actually playing the game and living out in the affected regions.
I know this is hard to believe, but not everyone wants the game skewed toward their own benefit. Some of us actually want the game to be... what's that word? Oh, right, fun. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30761
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:45:28 -
[2173] - Quote
At this point I'm pretty sure the Entosis' stats are intentionally being presented in a broke OP state (by Fozzie) for the hype. I predict Entosis will be changed to require X number of Entosis minutes (or hours) which can be sped up with multiple Entosis lasers at once, from both sides. So basically the contest will be a rolling count of total Entosis minutes with the winner being the side with an X minute / hour lead.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
175
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:46:24 -
[2174] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:Everyone just needs to chill and wait out for more info on the actual fitting requirements and adjustments that will inevitably be made to this.
Stop splurging on like autistic children. Sheesh. Decent observations are getting lost in the absolute drivel you people have spewed forth about trollceptor fleets, CFC posturing and ~the end of supercaptials~.
Guys, its still months away from implementation and there WILL be adjustments. Just chill. Its not the end of the world. Its a good step in the right direction and with a bit (a lot?) of spit and polish this will be a marked improvement on the current status quo of sitting on a titan and gaining perfect intel over the enemy before standing down for yet another blueball OP.
Relax people. Relax.
coming from someone who's group was main reason jump fatigue was created.
you'd be crying a tear of hell if they nerfed hot dropping all together.
yeah I said it so what.. you gonna drop a nyx on my miner ship........again!
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30761
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:48:16 -
[2175] - Quote
I love your name, btw Milla. Goodpussy.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
686
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:51:02 -
[2176] - Quote
Worrff wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Alp Khan wrote:I especially laughed out loud and ended up spilling the Turkish coffee I've been sipping when I saw that Deklein region, the place I live in and the revered Goon homeland, has seen PvP related losses decrease by 20% since Phoebe and Jump Fatigue hit. Fozzie isn't just doing a terrible job at re-imagining sovereignty, he is also doing a terrible job at covering his own back so that he and his plan can look good to his immediate superiors who no doubt track his so called progress. This needs to be reposted again and again. Well said. Spot on.
I have left in the part that pokes so many holes through that piece, Deklin is sitting behind all the other CFC alliances, its is remote has large numbers of defenders. The changes made by jump drive reduction and fatigue made it even more difficult to attack, so -20% was actually not as bad as I was expecting.
It proves nothing except that Deklin is a very good place to have as your homeland!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Specia1 K
State War Academy Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:53:32 -
[2177] - Quote
I support these changes +1.
Change is good... |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
257
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:55:51 -
[2178] - Quote
Specia1 K wrote:I support these changes +1.
Change is good...
Change often is.
Change just for the sake of change... rarely is. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30761
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:56:14 -
[2179] - Quote
How to make it seem like you listen to feedback:
Present a broken idea
Let players rabble
Do it the right way like you planned, and say it was due to feedback.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
151
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:01:46 -
[2180] - Quote
So, how about giving the T1 link a bit more range around 35-50km and T2 a way higher fittingrequirement to prevent ceptor, covertops and D3 shitshows? They can still flip your structures but if you undock it is more about the fight and less about the chase. Ofc this might run into problems with rapid lights. |
|
Eric Xallen
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:01:53 -
[2181] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:How to make it seem like you listen to feedback:
Present a broken idea
Let players rabble
Do it the right way like you planned, and say it was due to feedback.
I'm inclined to agree. Purposely put it out there that it can be fit on trollceptors, and other terrible ideas, let people freak the **** out about it, and then 'wind it back' to the original idea which is still a massive change that people will hate, but they'll accept it more readily because you've already given them a truly bad idea they managed to 'change your mind on'.
Notably the CSM are absent in this, and quiet, not coming out and helping calm people privately or publicly on some of the worst aspects of this. Almost as if they know its going to be rolled back. Perhaps that's tin-foiling. Perhaps this is the new method of delivering big, harsh changes, not unlike aspects of phoebe. |
GrimmRipper
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
34
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:02:17 -
[2182] - Quote
CCP please start playing your game.
In Ordo Drakonis we trust!
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
620
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:06:28 -
[2183] - Quote
Timezone-locked faction warfare. What could possibly go wrong?
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30762
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:07:30 -
[2184] - Quote
You'd end up with an Australia that nobody touches.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:09:50 -
[2185] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:If you want to hear Mittens speak about Sov and breaking down the enemy with exhaustive threats of invasion, find a recording of his EVE Vegas 2012 presentation. Then relate that to how easy it is to present a credible threat with this Entosis laser. Then come back and read what Aryth, Alp Khan, Querns, Arrendis, and Gevlon have said in this thread. The fear mongering you guys keep doing is getting tiresome. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:10:06 -
[2186] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:You'd end up with an Australia that nobody touches.
So basically, Turn 3 of Risk? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30762
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:16:15 -
[2187] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Rain6637 wrote:If you want to hear Mittens speak about Sov and breaking down the enemy with exhaustive threats of invasion, find a recording of his EVE Vegas 2012 presentation. Then relate that to how easy it is to present a credible threat with this Entosis laser. Then come back and read what Aryth, Alp Khan, Querns, Arrendis, and Gevlon have said in this thread. The fear mongering you guys keep doing is getting tiresome. m8 you're confused. That post has the most candor of any of my posts in this thread so far.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
620
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:17:55 -
[2188] - Quote
Timezone locked faction warfare is not an idea that ANY null-sec entity will get on-board with.
But then you can't trust the CFC because we're here to ruin everyone else's game. And you can't trust N3 either because they are dirty mega-renters.
Listen to the Empire players, the heart and soul of a dynamic and inclusive EVE. They will surely love this timezone-locked faction warfare content for the revolutionary innovation in gaming that it truly is.
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:21:47 -
[2189] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:If you want to hear Mittens speak about Sov and breaking down the enemy with exhaustive threats of invasion, find a recording of his EVE Vegas 2012 presentation. Then relate that to how easy it is to present a credible threat with this Entosis laser. Then come back and read what Aryth, Alp Khan, Querns, Arrendis, and Gevlon have said in this thread.
I dont doubt that many of the gamers in goons/cfc want the game to be fun! I had a great time rolling around with Topgoon last time I was subbed in 2014. But what is this above meant to prove? Is it that CFC/The Mittani will use all tools including those of a physcological nature that dont have an ingame mechanic in order to wear down their enemy. Check, we knew that!!! Its pretty much how CFC won the Tribute war against NC.
You can sh*t all over other entities, we know that. But what the game lacks now is a chance for smaller entities and newer groups to be part of nullsec sov-holding. The large exception to it being impossible are the variouss reddit-born groups that have come onto eve during the last years. Maybe some of these mechanics like the Entosis module need to be tuned, but focusing capitals towards fighting capitals as is a great thing. Finally I can use my dreads and carriers for combat and even when in a smaller group. Having sov space again would be fun and I would like to help my alliancemates who never had the chance for null get in at an entry level. Not everyone is suited for the coalitions, and the game desperately needs mechanics that are focused on serving the smaller and mid-sized groups. Large coalitions will still be superstrong but holding all the empty territories will be harder and less motivating for the line members, which is a good thing tbh.
I dont want to be a renter and I dont want to be part of the larger coalitions this time around because I have absolutely NO impact on what content is generated for me with the exception of a roam or so. Not that I have all the answers, but the best gametime for me was when in small to mid-sized alliances without a bloated bluelist.
That sov levels are based on mining and ratting is a far greater issue imo. Mining and running anomalies are really bad parameters with regards to providing security to other players and fuelling the industry that alliances really need in order to function combatwise and provide SRP to members. Industry has other indexes after Crius that would be much more relavant to use. For security its more tricky, since any linking of pvp-kills/value can be exploited as proven by goon finance cabal when revamped FW was introduced. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:22:21 -
[2190] - Quote
For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?
You claim that any small group will be crushed by your thousand upon thousands, but you leave the rest of your territory wide open. So you will lose it just as fast as you gain it.
Your other option is to spread your blog out across your territory in order to hold it. Your so called blob to blot out the sun is now thinned out. Now instead of that small group facing thousands and thousands of you at once, they enjoy only having to fight smaller sections at a time. Thus, greatly increasing their odds of winning.
Everyone knows that without massive numbers, most large blocs do terrible in smaller scale combat compared to the average player due to how much they relied on massive numbers to do anything. I can't help but think that is the reason for all this fear mongering you all have been doing. The idea of having to fight a smaller group without bringing every single member of your coalition bloc frightens you.
It's OK to be afraid. I have faith your pilots will learn how to use more than just the F1 key. |
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:25:52 -
[2191] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?
Actually, if you check the comments in the trollceptor article on TMC, I did the math: CONDI could mount an active defense of every sov structure it owns and still theoretically have 50% of its 11,997 members available to troll.
Quote:I have faith your pilots will learn how to use more than just the F1 key.
Really? Cuz we don't. :) |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:31:46 -
[2192] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Rain6637 wrote:If you want to hear Mittens speak about Sov and breaking down the enemy with exhaustive threats of invasion, find a recording of his EVE Vegas 2012 presentation. Then relate that to how easy it is to present a credible threat with this Entosis laser. Then come back and read what Aryth, Alp Khan, Querns, Arrendis, and Gevlon have said in this thread. The fear mongering you guys keep doing is getting tiresome. m8 you're confused. That post has the most candor of any of my posts in this thread so far. Sorry, but taking into consideration mittens past, I can't take anything that guy has to say seriously. Everything he says and does is just super market, tabloid style propaganda.
That aside, I am looking forward to these separate issue threads CCP Fozzie was talking about and hopefully any kinks in this new sov system can be ironed out before it hits Tranquility.
I'm just really tired of this thread. All I see are bloc members screaming with tear filled eyes how this change will be the end of the game. The same tears were spilled over the jump fatigue mechanic and that change has proven to be very healthy for the game as a whole, despite the vocal minority who relied so heavily on teleporation to do even the most basic things in the game. They became fat, lazy and rich. Now they are very upset they can't continue to parade around as digital cancer to the game.
Again, I look forward to the new threads and engaging in healthy dialog with everyone, no matter who they are. But, I will not suffer fools. |
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:32:58 -
[2193] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you? You claim that any small group will be crushed by your thousand upon thousands, but you leave the rest of your territory wide open. So you will lose it just as fast as you gain it. Your other option is to spread your blog out across your territory in order to hold it. Your so called blob to blot out the sun is now thinned out. Now instead of that small group facing thousands and thousands of you at once, they enjoy only having to fight smaller sections at a time. Thus, greatly increasing their odds of winning. Everyone knows that without massive numbers, most large blocs do terrible in smaller scale combat compared to the average player due to how much they relied on massive numbers to do anything. I can't help but think that is the reason for all this fear mongering you all have been doing. The idea of having to fight a smaller group without bringing every single member of your coalition bloc frightens you. It's OK to be afraid. I have faith your pilots will learn how to use more than just the F1 key.
The point will not be to hold, but to grief you. Unachor the Ihub and destroy the upgrades then reanchor it again. Now you have to bring in a new ihub and upgrades. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
919
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:34:41 -
[2194] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:It's OK to be afraid. I have faith your pilots will learn how to use more than just the F1 key.
Put Entosis Link behind F1, problem solved. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30763
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:35:15 -
[2195] - Quote
Hey Dark Spite, I didn't mean for it to make anyone upset. I mentioned it for anyone interested in proof of how Entosis sov will be used by goons.
The summary of Mittenz' talk was how to run sov warfare. So it is very relevant. He also mentions that Sov is EVE's best / only undeniable win condition. You can measure battles in ISK and ships, but the final flag that is planted is Sov. So. Sov has ISK benefits, but it's not about that, it's about planting that flag.
The other interesting thing about his talk is the date. 2012. At the time, his example for griefing was fake-out cynos, for days on end. Light random cynos in the space you intend to invade, and bring nothing through it. They'll respond and get amped up initially, but over time it will just wear them down.
Not sure if you're aware, but groups in EVE fall apart without so much as a shot fired, due to things like stress.
In 2015, it won't be cynos, it will be Entosis modules. The tactics he discussed in that presentation work even better with Entosis sov.
And then you have the people who have posted in this thread. They are warning everyone that Entosis sov will be bad. Gevlon included, and his comments can be taken as acknowledgement that it will be abused by you know who. Goon comments can be taken as gloating, or whatever you like.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:39:20 -
[2196] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you? Actually, if you check the comments in the trollceptor article on TMC, I did the math: CONDI could mount an active defense of every sov structure it owns and still theoretically have 50% of its 11,997 members available to troll. Quote:I have faith your pilots will learn how to use more than just the F1 key. Really? Cuz we don't. :)
that article is d*mb, what's the value of the "trollceptor's" speed, mobility and range if all the defender needs to do is just sit right next to the node and capture it with it's own entosis thingy to stop the "capturing event's" progress? they don't even need to attack, just tank the assault and endure it for 4 hrs...
Just Add Water
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:41:20 -
[2197] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you? Actually, if you check the comments in the trollceptor article on TMC, I did the math: CONDI could mount an active defense of every sov structure it owns and still theoretically have 50% of its 11,997 members available to troll. Goons are incapable of fighting alone in such small numbers. So to entertain the idea that they would fair well in small scale combat is laughable - much less solo pvp.
I'm just taking playful jabs by the way. I mean no harm. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:42:54 -
[2198] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:It's OK to be afraid. I have faith your pilots will learn how to use more than just the F1 key. Put Entosis Link behind F1, problem solved. Oh god... This is a bad idea! |
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:43:02 -
[2199] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Arrendis wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you? Actually, if you check the comments in the trollceptor article on TMC, I did the math: CONDI could mount an active defense of every sov structure it owns and still theoretically have 50% of its 11,997 members available to troll. Quote:I have faith your pilots will learn how to use more than just the F1 key. Really? Cuz we don't. :) that article is d*mb, what's the value of the "trollceptor's" speed, mobility and range if all the defender needs to do is just sit right next to the node and capture it with it's own entosis thingy to stop the "capturing event's" progress? they don't even need to attack, just tank the assault and endure it for 4 hrs...
That is going to be 4 lovely hours sitting there with the defence beam. Sounds like a good mechanic right ? The attacker has everything to win and nothing to lose.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:45:36 -
[2200] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:While the current sovereignty system worked fine for many years, we see the need for a fundamental overhaul. We are excited to present the plans for a new sov system coming early this summer including: 1) No more grinding through hitpoints 2) Meaningful combat events distributed over the whole constellation 3) Space activity results in defensive bonus 4) Designated daily "Prime time" for alliances when their structures become vulnerable Read all about this new sov system, the mechanics and the fine details in CCP Fozzie's latest blog Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two! 1) so much easier for large groups to conquer (only need 100 Ishtars instead of 300) 2) so much easier for large groups to cover and conquer (small groups won't be able to undertake activities over a constellation) 3) LOL 4) How biased is that gong to be - Large group picks "Prime Time" and only a larger group will stand a chance of defeating them. Small group picks prime time and large group kick crap out of them. Large groups can cover all time zones, small group 1, if they are a well focused group who all live in the same part of the world.
Quote: Bringing more players will always have some value, as it will provide advantages in direct fleet combat with your opponents. But a system that allows small numbers of players to conquer space as quickly as larger numbers ensures that if your fleet has the capability to win the fight, you automatically have enough people to take the Sovereignty objectives. In one short paragraph you spelled out how easily only the large entities will take or hold sov to the exclusion of anyone they don't want there. Seriously - What small group is going to go try to take sov with a 40,000 man coalition within range. I'm sure a few small groups will try initially but it won't be long before they just give up and either join one of the giant coalitions or go back to npc nul.
Quote: Our realistic goal for the new Sovereignty system is that a very small group of players in virtually any ship types should be able to completely conquer an undefended system with a few ~10-30 minute sessions spread across a few days As long as large groups can move to counter any attempts by "small numbers of players" "spread over a few days". No small group is going to be able to take sov.
The only thing likely to be achieved here is small tracts of SovNul that never have anyone take sov. The big groups don't need to take any more sov than they want and simply stop anyone else from taking the vacant bits in between that they don't want..
Good try but -1
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
687
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:46:07 -
[2201] - Quote
CCP I spoke to some ex-players about this change, most of who left due to sov being meh, and so far everyone who I spoke to were positive and were thinking about re-subbing so they can carve out their own space even if its precarious. Stick to your guns on this, its being well received by people who left because doing sov was impossible with supers on line.
Ella's Snack bar
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:48:58 -
[2202] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:CCP I spoke to some ex-players about this change, most of who left due to sov being meh, and so far everyone who I spoke to were positive and were thinking about re-subbing so they can carve out their own space even if its precarious. Stick to your guns on this, its being well received by people who left because doing sov was impossible with supers on line. Silence you! Only the current blocs should be allowed to own sov! Any changes to the game that allows a group not affiliated to an existing coalition to take even a single system is heresy! |
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
83
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:49:17 -
[2203] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:Arrendis wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you? Actually, if you check the comments in the trollceptor article on TMC, I did the math: CONDI could mount an active defense of every sov structure it owns and still theoretically have 50% of its 11,997 members available to troll. Quote:I have faith your pilots will learn how to use more than just the F1 key. Really? Cuz we don't. :) that article is d*mb, what's the value of the "trollceptor's" speed, mobility and range if all the defender needs to do is just sit right next to the node and capture it with it's own entosis thingy to stop the "capturing event's" progress? they don't even need to attack, just tank the assault and endure it for 4 hrs... That is going to be 4 lovely hours sitting there with the defence beam. Sounds like a good mechanic right ? The attacker has everything to win and nothing to lose.
if they can do it to me, i can do it to them also right? if not, then i don't have a business being there.
attacker is wasting/enjoying/trolling/playing his 4hrs attacking my node to no avail, im also wasting/enjoying/trolling/playing my 4hrs defending it. just a matter of POV.
Just Add Water
|
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:51:18 -
[2204] - Quote
i think\hope will only change the shape of the intel, we will not see, hopefully, random roam searchig target but maybe we can have:
sbrodor> XXX station service under attack, 15 cruiser fleet or sbrodor> YYY hub (p7) under attack, need support 20 svipul gang
this is for me AWESOME! we do a defence patrol for REAL threat and not only for fun and training!
OF course i THINK, and HOPE, the REWARD of holding sov will be great.
from june holding a sov is not a joke or a heritage, is a duty. DAILY DUTY.
Setupping a weekly calendar with a primetime-daily-defence-standing-fleet between the major pvp entity is a must. IF this fleet cannot Hold the ground at LEAST CAN engage hostile while major cohalition fleet coming. Disrupting, taking time, SKIRMISH become a part of SOV HOLDING and that is awesome.
If today we fight and die for killing a 20 hostile fleet roaming in primetime today is, in fact, USELESS. they roam roam and if nothing found come back home. no fun , no sense. tomorrow is a part of sov holding, is AWESOME! Today what is the sense of making in hostile 0.0 a pvp roam?
I expect the right to anchor low-sec-style-guns at gate and ihub or station, Excellent PVE reward in invu-time, lot of isk, more challeging pve and more intensive pvp. in fact a more dense EVEOnline.
i'm so excited.
i have a question: at timer node spawn after reinforce. ok. BUT if NO one conquered 10 nodes after the end of vulnerability time , what happen? they keep existing till timer come to 10 or they lockdown? if we set the primetime 19-22 and node spawn what happen at 22.01? i hope setting the timer allow the .30 minut half hour set.
sorry for my english |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:52:04 -
[2205] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:The same tears were spilled over the jump fatigue mechanic and that change has proven to be very healthy for the game as a whole, despite the vocal minority who relied so heavily on teleporation to do even the most basic things in the game.
Actually, if you go back and look, a lot of the initial complaints about jump fatigue were about a)logistics of living out in null, and b)the fact that it was possible to rack up a jump timer of over 8 millenia.
And those got addressed.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:52:07 -
[2206] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Arrendis wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you? Actually, if you check the comments in the trollceptor article on TMC, I did the math: CONDI could mount an active defense of every sov structure it owns and still theoretically have 50% of its 11,997 members available to troll. Goons are incapable of fighting alone in such small numbers. So to entertain the idea that they would fair well in small scale combat is laughable - much less solo pvp. I'm just taking playful jabs by the way. I mean no harm.
Goons are not a 12,000 man alliance, they are a 40,000 man coalition - You never fight "Goons", you fight the CFC.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1994
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:52:27 -
[2207] - Quote
Bezdar22 wrote:lemme tell u whats gonna happen...
there will be FW like fights in null sec.. no more big fights.. frig fights every where...
what they dont understand ppl coe top play this game coz they heard of big fights.. thats what make story .. not small fights.
small fights just look cool thats about it..
this game wil become WOW pretty soon.. thats where CCP leading us.
There will still be big fights. But wars will not be a LOT of boredom waiting for failed opportunitie sof such big fights.. and then suddenly end after a single big fight.
Wars will be more interestign with several smaller engagements, until someone tries to go for a very important target when Big fight WILL happen. The only difference is that the bigh fight will not be on a single grid, but spread all over the constellation.
More tactical depth, more strategical opportunities. THe need of real fleet commanders, not people that just call targets. The need of a hierarchy of command because you will have several ' regiments" in a fleet that must spread
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1995
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:56:59 -
[2208] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Timezone-locked faction warfare. What could possibly go wrong?
The FIXED timezone thing is the only real problem.
I would just make it opposite. An alliance can set a 4 window period where it cannot be attacked. To cover their worst time. The rest of the time is up to them to arrange a solution.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
676
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:00:03 -
[2209] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:CCP I spoke to some ex-players about this change, most of who left due to sov being meh, and so far everyone who I spoke to were positive and were thinking about re-subbing so they can carve out their own space even if its precarious. Stick to your guns on this, its being well received by people who left because doing sov was impossible with supers on line. Of course they're supportive of this idea. They don't have sov, and this change makes it easier to take sov.
They should really question, though, whether their reasons for having sov in the first place have been addressed.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:01:02 -
[2210] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Bezdar22 wrote:lemme tell u whats gonna happen...
there will be FW like fights in null sec.. no more big fights.. frig fights every where...
what they dont understand ppl coe top play this game coz they heard of big fights.. thats what make story .. not small fights.
small fights just look cool thats about it..
this game wil become WOW pretty soon.. thats where CCP leading us.
There will still be big fights. But wars will not be a LOT of boredom waiting for failed opportunitie sof such big fights.. and then suddenly end after a single big fight. Wars will be more interestign with several smaller engagements, until someone tries to go for a very important target when Big fight WILL happen. The only difference is that the bigh fight will not be on a single grid, but spread all over the constellation. More tactical depth, more strategical opportunities. THe need of real fleet commanders, not people that just call targets. The need of a hierarchy of command because you will have several ' regiments" in a fleet that must spread
Have you ever fought a sov war? You are not going to see small gangs zipping around fightting for the nodes.
|
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
99
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:03:23 -
[2211] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:The same tears were spilled over the jump fatigue mechanic and that change has proven to be very healthy for the game as a whole, despite the vocal minority who relied so heavily on teleporation to do even the most basic things in the game. Actually, if you go back and look, a lot of the initial complaints about jump fatigue were about a)logistics of living out in null, and b)the fact that it was possible to rack up a jump timer of over 8 millenia. And those got addressed. the 30 day fatigue timer still sucks balls for those who dont pay attention, it really needs to be capped at a week max |
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:04:08 -
[2212] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:CCP I spoke to some ex-players about this change, most of who left due to sov being meh, and so far everyone who I spoke to were positive and were thinking about re-subbing so they can carve out their own space even if its precarious. Stick to your guns on this, its being well received by people who left because doing sov was impossible with supers on line.
And they think that the new sov is better? It like your xgirlfriend. You sometimes forget why you left until you have that "ooh" moment again. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1995
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:04:28 -
[2213] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:At this point I'm pretty sure the Entosis' stats are intentionally being presented in a broke OP state (by Fozzie) for the hype. I predict Entosis will be changed to require X number of Entosis minutes (or hours) which can be sped up with multiple Entosis lasers at once, from both sides. So basically the contest will be a rolling count of total Entosis minutes with the winner being the side with an X minute / hour lead.
This is just like the time Rise said "PS: permadeath. PEACE!" at the end of EVE Vegas. For the hype. Something tells me he didn't want to do it, and was put up to it by someone managing, well, hype.
So you fail at understanding the very BASICS of their proposal. The KEY thing is NOT ESCALATING WITH NUMBERS!!
That is the Only reason why these proposals are interesting! because it will be more interesting to have several smaller fleeets than a HUGE BLOB on most of the war period. Because a small group can disable a system from a much larger alliance even with 10-20 ships if the owning alliance has no one living on that system. Because it will be the same speed for the average joe league to take a system as it would be for CFC do the same.
People whined so much about force projection, but they always failed to study proper strategy and notice that the problem is force CONCENTRATION! Force projection is just a mean to achieve force concentration! The lack of a limit or diminishing return in force CONCENTRATION is the root of all evil in 0.0
It makes the war in eve closer to strategic level of real world wars and with more depth. It does not amtter if you had the whole damm red army or just a regiment of 1k soldiers. Takes exactly the same time to take a village of grape farmers in south of France with either force! Because you cannot make such massive force concentration!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
SiKong Ma
House of Nim-Lhach Skeleton Crew.
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:05:16 -
[2214] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:SiKong Ma wrote:Here's my 2 cents of opinion to CCP:
1) Entosis link is OP unless there's a serious speed and range nerf - I suggest rename entosis link a a boarding collar (or launching of boarding parties) and every minute consumes 1 marine and 1 supply/min (or whatever figure CCP can "balance") making the ideal ship to do this job, deep space transports. Ship must be below certain speed to start boarding operations and cargohold limits how long you can sustain a "boarding". So 200 ceptors trying to board, possible but you gotta have a transport supplying you the manpower (and later on you can link with the DUST thingy if you want). Of course the structure itself have a certain number of marines in defence and it can be topped up by defenders if their troopships don't get destroyed (defenders will have the advantage of getting marines in). Initial attack on station will be like a small boarding party to gain information of key locations to strike in system followed by spawning of all those command nodes.
2) All hauling ships armed with boarding collar may not have cloak installed as the boarding collar disrupts with the cloaking ability making them targets to be hunted.
3) Capitals have no role now except to bash moons and POS - with introduction of troop hauling ships, capitals will have a role and dreads gets useful in dropping the caps that tried to kill the troopships (can even consider giving them troop bays so they can board too).
4) Ratters/Industrialists and miners are leechers - well, now they can fly those troop hauling ships making them really valuable assets to defend and those are cheap, let non-combatant be non-combatant, it is their preferred life-style but allow them to contribute.
5) Blitz will be the next meta - well, you can't exactly blitz with just 1 transport ship of troops and those are easy to kill if not properly defended.
6) Where do I get soldiers - planetary interaction (introduce troops training facility and supply factories).
War must include soldiers both in space and on land (or in stations). Fullscale warfare includes supplies and soldiers and if you deny either of those, there's no one to make war or assert control. Also, works well with lore and think of the press value (2,000,000 troops killed and 20 million supply units captured in failed assault by Giraffe Swan on New Cataleya alliance). Anyway, just my fantasy. Unironically this idea actually makes some sense, it works with the lore and isn't as stupidly easy to encourage excess griefing.
One more suggestion I missed out:
A) Command nodes are protected by NPC ships much like anomalies, if a big attack fleet comes in, those pesky NPC makes no difference, taking it in a bunch of ceptors, well, as hard as doing anomalies in a bunch of ceptors and still need troopships to dock and take those strategic command nodes (I'd call them garrison bases).
B) If a space is left undefended, a BS or carrier with some transports hauling troops can easily and quickly take a system.
C) In order for smaller entities to survive in null sec, logistics is the key and small entities cannot afford to haul upgrades that require freighters (and thus Titan bridge in), so make infrastructure hub upgrades smaller so smaller entities can rebuild if they missed a timer.
That makes 4 cents :D
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:05:58 -
[2215] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote: the 30 day fatigue timer still sucks balls for those who dont pay attention, it really needs to be capped at a week max
It does, but it's a lot better than 'you will never jump again'. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
99
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:06:37 -
[2216] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Bezdar22 wrote:lemme tell u whats gonna happen...
there will be FW like fights in null sec.. no more big fights.. frig fights every where...
what they dont understand ppl coe top play this game coz they heard of big fights.. thats what make story .. not small fights.
small fights just look cool thats about it..
this game wil become WOW pretty soon.. thats where CCP leading us.
There will still be big fights. But wars will not be a LOT of boredom waiting for failed opportunitie sof such big fights.. and then suddenly end after a single big fight. Wars will be more interestign with several smaller engagements, until someone tries to go for a very important target when Big fight WILL happen. The only difference is that the bigh fight will not be on a single grid, but spread all over the constellation. More tactical depth, more strategical opportunities. THe need of real fleet commanders, not people that just call targets. The need of a hierarchy of command because you will have several ' regiments" in a fleet that must spread Have you ever fought a sov war? You are not going to see small gangs zipping around fightting for the nodes.
If a whole constellation comes out of rf in the same day and you want to win a majority of the timers this is exactly what will happen, and it unironically wont be very fun because fighting wont be the obejctive capturing as many nodes as fast as possible will be, then you may fight over the last few, but by that time 2 hours have passed and half of each fleet is ready to log. I mean im all for small gang but i want sov warfare to actualyly be warfare between medium sized fleets, not warfare between 10 man gangs all rushing ot caputre nodes.
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
84
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:08:15 -
[2217] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:
Have you ever fought a sov war? You are not going to see small gangs zipping around fightting for the nodes.
with this mechanic, you will be forced to because those big ships that you usually use will be very slow to manuever all over the constellation.
or bring in more pilot to have them spread out in every system of that constellation, but still, warping those big ships to node range would be pita.
Just Add Water
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1995
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:08:17 -
[2218] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:This Entosis Link need it's price rised say you make it cost 1 bill I say this is fair as you can take as many systems you want with 1 Entosis Link. And if the ship carrying the Entosis Link get destoyed it still got a chance of being droped, not destoyed as all other sov structores <.<
This is also gone make people fitt it to more tanky ships and not interceptores, making the attackers at least risk something to reinforce a system. Also a ship that fitt a Entosis Link should not be able to cloak and not be nullified so this FLAG SHIP is gone need constant protection. A little bit how we did Freighter protection into null before.
Edit: Also make so you have to be in a station to fitt it, so you can only attack from LOW sec or NPC null.
1 Bil is a bit too much. CCP clearly wants to divorce the concept of capital ship online from sov. I think 300M for a long range variant would be enough. There should be more variants. Close range and slow... very cheap. Close range and fast.... average Long range ans slow Averaeg priec.... long range and fast.. very expensive.
And again for all the Interceptors doomsayers. If you live in system, you just undock a SINGLE MARAUDER or carrier and putyour own entosis link to counter it. A bunch of interceptors will NOT kill you, and if then the fight escalates... that is exaclty what this system is supposed to create.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1995
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:10:42 -
[2219] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Bezdar22 wrote:lemme tell u whats gonna happen...
there will be FW like fights in null sec.. no more big fights.. frig fights every where...
what they dont understand ppl coe top play this game coz they heard of big fights.. thats what make story .. not small fights.
small fights just look cool thats about it..
this game wil become WOW pretty soon.. thats where CCP leading us.
There will still be big fights. But wars will not be a LOT of boredom waiting for failed opportunitie sof such big fights.. and then suddenly end after a single big fight. Wars will be more interestign with several smaller engagements, until someone tries to go for a very important target when Big fight WILL happen. The only difference is that the bigh fight will not be on a single grid, but spread all over the constellation. More tactical depth, more strategical opportunities. THe need of real fleet commanders, not people that just call targets. The need of a hierarchy of command because you will have several ' regiments" in a fleet that must spread Have you ever fought a sov war? You are not going to see small gangs zipping around fightting for the nodes.
Yes, I fought in 0.0 for a long time and I learned something, people will do whatever is needed to win. That coupled with understanding MATH.. leads to a simple conclusion.... if you do not split forces under this new system you will ALWAYS LOSE! IF you keep 1K people at one location and let the enemy split his 300 people in 3 groups you will LOSE the RACE!
ADAPT OR BECOME OBSOLETE! THE CHOICE IS YOURS!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1995
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:13:01 -
[2220] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Lurifax wrote:
Have you ever fought a sov war? You are not going to see small gangs zipping around fightting for the nodes.
with this mechanic, you will be forced to because those big ships that you usually use will be very slow to manuever all over the constellation. or bring in more pilot to have them spread out in every system of that constellation, but still, warping those big ships to node range would be pita.
The simple usage of interdictors at gates will be enough to make using a single capital force to contest the constellation an exercise of futility. As soon as the fleet arrives, 2 or 3 other nodes will have been taken by the more spread and more mobile force.
Capital ships will still be the center on moons take overs, and destruction of POS with tactical structures.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30764
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:14:48 -
[2221] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Rain6637 wrote:At this point I'm pretty sure the Entosis' stats are intentionally being presented in a broke OP state (by Fozzie) for the hype. I predict Entosis will be changed to require X number of Entosis minutes (or hours) which can be sped up with multiple Entosis lasers at once, from both sides. So basically the contest will be a rolling count of total Entosis minutes with the winner being the side with an X minute / hour lead.
This is just like the time Rise said "PS: permadeath. PEACE!" at the end of EVE Vegas. For the hype. Something tells me he didn't want to do it, and was put up to it by someone managing, well, hype. So you fail at understanding the very BASICS of their proposal. The KEY thing is NOT ESCALATING WITH NUMBERS!! That is the Only reason why these proposals are interesting! because it will be more interesting to have several smaller fleeets than a HUGE BLOB on most of the war period. Because a small group can disable a system from a much larger alliance even with 10-20 ships if the owning alliance has no one living on that system. Because it will be the same speed for the average joe league to take a system as it would be for CFC do the same. People whined so much about force projection, but they always failed to study proper strategy and notice that the problem is force CONCENTRATION! Force projection is just a mean to achieve force concentration! The lack of a limit or diminishing return in force CONCENTRATION is the root of all evil in 0.0 It makes the war in eve closer to strategic level of real world wars and with more depth. It does not amtter if you had the whole damm red army or just a regiment of 1k soldiers. Takes exactly the same time to take a village of grape farmers in south of France with either force! Because you cannot make such massive force concentration! I don't think it should require escalation with numbers either. But it is obvious the Entosis system is designed to be a contest of military power, and only ends until one side is depleted. So while one Entosis appears to promote anti-blob gameplay, the reality is Entosis contests require annihilation or the nonexistence of one side.
If you raise the total Entosis minute requirement, you remove the viability of one Entosis laser as a credible threat.
Right now, a credible threat looks like a group with enough DPS to have its way with your station in 10 minutes. With Entosis sov, a credible threat is reduced to just one dude.
And that's a mistake because the station part of it is basically a ball tap to see if anyone's home.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:16:19 -
[2222] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Hey Dark Spite, I didn't mean for it to make anyone upset. I mentioned it for anyone interested in proof of how Entosis sov will be used by goons.
The summary of Mittenz' talk was how to run sov warfare. So it is very relevant. He also mentions that Sov is EVE's best / only undeniable win condition. You can measure battles in ISK and ships, but the final flag that is planted is Sov. So. Sov has ISK benefits, but it's not about that, it's about planting that flag.
The other interesting thing about his talk is the date. 2012. At the time, his example for griefing was fake-out cynos, for days on end. Light random cynos in the space you intend to invade, and bring nothing through it. They'll respond and get amped up initially, but over time it will just wear them down.
Not sure if you're aware, but groups in EVE fall apart without so much as a shot fired, due to things like stress.
In 2015, it won't be cynos, it will be Entosis modules. The tactics he discussed in that presentation work even better with Entosis sov.
And then you have the people who have posted in this thread. They are warning everyone that Entosis sov will be bad. Gevlon included, and his comments can be taken as acknowledgement that it will be abused by you know who. Goon comments can be taken as gloating, or whatever you like.
I wasnt upset by you linking it and I do have a lot of respect for CFC and goons. Especially after having been part of CFC. The organisational level is really really good, I dont think a lot of outsiders understand how deep it runs. I agree that sov and planting the flag is one of the very few win conditions in EVE, but that is exactly why something new is desperately needed. I think the entosis module and shortening the sov conquering phase will give more activity in null. We are pretty excited about the opportunity it can provide for our gaming group.
And stress is a huge factor, I have personally afk'ed from the game when I was ceo of in a corp/alliance that held sov because of it. But it was also fun and challenging at the same time!
Gevlon's opinions I take with a huge grain of salt, I honestly think he would GRR Goons no matter what the sov system would be unless it involved the forced disbanding of CONDI.
But you and so many of the others in Goons are imo focusing too much on the griefer aspect and disregarding all the benefits the game mechanics can provide to small and mid-sized allianes. Given EVE players abilities to use the mechanics differently than ccp envisioned there can be no foolproof system. But more risktaking without huge consequences and burning out alliance doers is a huge step in the right direction. It is also quite different to hold a small area, like a constellation, in comparison to holding multiple regions. This alone would reduce the stress levels of alliance leadership and burnout factor for us groups that dont have multiple redundancies in alliance leadership. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:18:38 -
[2223] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:And again for all the Interceptors doomsayers. If you live in system, you just undock a SINGLE MARAUDER or carrier and putyour own entosis link to counter it. A bunch of interceptors will NOT kill you, and if then the fight escalates... that is exaclty what this system is supposed to create.
Right! and while you're sure that bunch of interceptors won't kill you (by the way, seen it done. Also, you can't get remote reps while sov lasering), and your buddies are coming to save your carrier because you were wrong, all those other structures in the area are getting hit, too.
Let's not say interceptors are going to be the doom of everything we see... but really, don't make the mistake of thinking that a single, heavily armored chesspiece is ever going to make a dent in asymmetrical warfare - which is what this system will set up. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30764
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:19:27 -
[2224] - Quote
Gevlon will lobby against anything that benefits CFC, and that's what he's doing with his comments in this thread.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Black Ambulance
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:19:29 -
[2225] - Quote
AngeDeMort wrote:Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit.. Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist. These changes look fantastic! Thanks for your time.. Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. xx
NO WAY , Ceptors are fine , if you can't counter them , move back to jita or new caldari !
Adopt or die , I want to fit that mod to my ibis too. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
687
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:20:54 -
[2226] - Quote
AngeDeMort wrote:Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit.. Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist. These changes look fantastic! Thanks for your time.. Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. xx
Sorry but in used systems the TCU will be next to a POS, of course IHUBS will be annoying but you should only have one if you can get people to defend it. Same for stations.
The Trollceptors will only affect alliances that have TCU's in a system to hold it and nothing else not even a POS and no players, its a red herring thrown by players that are looking at what will annoy them rather than what the system will develop into. When I have a system it will be easy to kill interceptors doing this.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:21:30 -
[2227] - Quote
Invulnerability of sov during all time but "prime time" is horrible idea.
It forces every group in the game to fight at a maximum disadvantage. And it makes every alliance to consolidate into a particular timezone. So at last we will get "time zone map of nullsec". I can hear the complaints of every russian as they discover that their offensive timers are always at 3am...
I think sov must be vulnerable not in "prime time" too. But not in "prime time" there should be x3 multiplier for capture time.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
687
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:22:17 -
[2228] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:And again for all the Interceptors doomsayers. If you live in system, you just undock a SINGLE MARAUDER or carrier and putyour own entosis link to counter it. A bunch of interceptors will NOT kill you, and if then the fight escalates... that is exaclty what this system is supposed to create. Right! and while you're sure that bunch of interceptors won't kill you (by the way, seen it done. Also, you can't get remote reps while sov lasering), and your buddies are coming to save your carrier because you were wrong, all those other structures in the area are getting hit, too. Let's not say interceptors are going to be the doom of everything we see... but really, don't make the mistake of thinking that a single, heavily armored chesspiece is ever going to make a dent in asymmetrical warfare - which is what this system will set up.
The TCU will be next to a POS, burn interceptors burn...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:24:55 -
[2229] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Lurifax wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Bezdar22 wrote:lemme tell u whats gonna happen...
there will be FW like fights in null sec.. no more big fights.. frig fights every where...
what they dont understand ppl coe top play this game coz they heard of big fights.. thats what make story .. not small fights.
small fights just look cool thats about it..
this game wil become WOW pretty soon.. thats where CCP leading us.
There will still be big fights. But wars will not be a LOT of boredom waiting for failed opportunitie sof such big fights.. and then suddenly end after a single big fight. Wars will be more interestign with several smaller engagements, until someone tries to go for a very important target when Big fight WILL happen. The only difference is that the bigh fight will not be on a single grid, but spread all over the constellation. More tactical depth, more strategical opportunities. THe need of real fleet commanders, not people that just call targets. The need of a hierarchy of command because you will have several ' regiments" in a fleet that must spread Have you ever fought a sov war? You are not going to see small gangs zipping around fightting for the nodes. Yes, I fought in 0.0 for a long time and I learned something, people will do whatever is needed to win. That coupled with understanding MATH.. leads to a simple conclusion.... if you do not split forces under this new system you will ALWAYS LOSE! IF you keep 1K people at one location and let the enemy split his 300 people in 3 groups you will LOSE the RACE! ADAPT OR BECOME OBSOLETE! THE CHOICE IS YOURS!
So much cap so little understanding on how it will be done. If I can bring 1k ppl and you can bring 300. You are ****** from the start. 300 on the undock and another 700 ppl dicking around capping nodes.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:26:05 -
[2230] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:So much cap so little understanding on how it will be done. If I can bring 1k ppl and you can bring 300. You are ****** from the start. 300 on the undock and another 700 ppl dicking around capping nodes. Guess you should send those 300 into his territory and burn it instead, then. |
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
84
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:26:12 -
[2231] - Quote
AngeDeMort wrote:Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit.. Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist. These changes look fantastic! Thanks for your time.. Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. xx
trollceptors will never be a thing
Just Add Water
|
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:26:18 -
[2232] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Arrendis wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:And again for all the Interceptors doomsayers. If you live in system, you just undock a SINGLE MARAUDER or carrier and putyour own entosis link to counter it. A bunch of interceptors will NOT kill you, and if then the fight escalates... that is exaclty what this system is supposed to create. Right! and while you're sure that bunch of interceptors won't kill you (by the way, seen it done. Also, you can't get remote reps while sov lasering), and your buddies are coming to save your carrier because you were wrong, all those other structures in the area are getting hit, too. Let's not say interceptors are going to be the doom of everything we see... but really, don't make the mistake of thinking that a single, heavily armored chesspiece is ever going to make a dent in asymmetrical warfare - which is what this system will set up. The TCU will be next to a POS, burn interceptors burn...
The TCU will only put the name on the map. You can keep on the pos, but it can be totally ignored since it is now separate from the Ihub and the station. |
AngeDeMort
CyberMachine
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:26:46 -
[2233] - Quote
Black Ambulance wrote:AngeDeMort wrote:Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit.. Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist. These changes look fantastic! Thanks for your time.. Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. xx NO WAY , Ceptors are fine , if you can't counter them , move back to jita or new caldari ! Adopt or die , I want to fit that mod to my ibis too.
Your ability to counter a troll fit with a troll fit of your own, in numbers, is not what is being sought here.. It is content and gameplay... Time-wasting, while it may float some peoples boats, is not really, I don't believe, something CCP wants, necessarily. By having a minumum ship-size fitting requirement the probability of actually engaging in combat/content increases... With trollceptors, the concept is NOT to engage in combat but rather in griefing-type activities! You wanting to fit one to your ibis says a lot... So, hopefully, it is not necessarily "no way.." |
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:28:02 -
[2234] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Lurifax wrote:So much cap so little understanding on how it will be done. If I can bring 1k ppl and you can bring 300. You are ****** from the start. 300 on the undock and another 700 ppl dicking around capping nodes. Guess you should send those 300 into his territory and burn it instead, then.
Would be a good option, if we happend to be the same 4 hour time window. But lets just say we were, then it would be a godd option.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:30:52 -
[2235] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Lurifax wrote:So much cap so little understanding on how it will be done. If I can bring 1k ppl and you can bring 300. You are ****** from the start. 300 on the undock and another 700 ppl dicking around capping nodes. Guess you should send those 300 into his territory and burn it instead, then. Would be a good option, if we happend to be the same 4 hour time window. But lets just say we were, then it would be a godd option. Or they can not be dumb and let themselves get camped into the station (don't log off in a station during war where the enemy's right outside holy christ), and then run around and pick off the fleets which ARE manageable. Or just realize that they've bitten off more than they could chew and go to a different spot where the neighbours are less feisty than they are. |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:31:02 -
[2236] - Quote
Interceptors are really good ships now and anyone disregarding their abilities in taking down large targets need look no further than Spectre Fleets roam last weekend where they took down a carrier alone. But maybe an interceptor simply cannot fit an Entosis module. That we dont know yet, given we only know range of t1 and t2 modules and that infomorph psychology will be a pre-requisite. Thats pretty thin for us to argue about sovceptors of doom.
The whole application of the mechanic would change a lot if it only can be fitted to cruiser hulls and above, or a severly borked t3 destroyer fit. And the latter wouldnt have the bubble immunities of the interceptors, which would reduce the ease of getting them into a system and survive.
With this module in place and the gimping on capital class ships caps will be more focused towards use on POS's and for dropping on caps.
Except for planting the flag, which the new system also provides, the biggest economic motivator outside of renter empires is moongoo. Smaller groups could offer/be forced to cede their good moons for a NIP. Thus reducing blue lists, encourage more people in null and more chances for content and fights.
Eve's biggest problem isnt the mechanics in themselves but the risk-aversion so many players and fc's have because welping a huge fleet sucks. Only DBRB dont mind doing that frequently but he does engage and take chances, which I laud him for. |
Black Ambulance
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:31:06 -
[2237] - Quote
AngeDeMort wrote:Black Ambulance wrote:AngeDeMort wrote:Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit.. Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist. These changes look fantastic! Thanks for your time.. Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. xx NO WAY , Ceptors are fine , if you can't counter them , move back to jita or new caldari ! Adopt or die , I want to fit that mod to my ibis too. Your ability to counter a troll fit with a troll fit of your own, in numbers, is not what is being sought here.. It is content and gameplay... Time-wasting, while it may float some peoples boats, is not really, I don't believe, something CCP wants, necessarily. By having a minumum ship-size fitting requirement the probability of actually engaging in combat/content increases... With trollceptors, the concept is NOT to engage in combat but rather in griefing-type activities! You wanting to fit one to your ibis says a lot... So, hopefully, it is not necessarily "no way.."
The ibis was a joke , but you can counter the ceptors etc with anything with the link fitted too.
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
84
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:31:13 -
[2238] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Lurifax wrote:So much cap so little understanding on how it will be done. If I can bring 1k ppl and you can bring 300. You are ****** from the start. 300 on the undock and another 700 ppl dicking around capping nodes. Guess you should send those 300 into his territory and burn it instead, then. Would be a good option, if we happend to be the same 4 hour time window. But lets just say we were, then it would be a godd option.
if not then your allies in the other tz will be having a hell of a good time doing their own harrassment op. and, see? prime tz is not a problem, everybody in different tz will have fun times.
Just Add Water
|
AngeDeMort
CyberMachine
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:31:54 -
[2239] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:AngeDeMort wrote:Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit.. Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist. These changes look fantastic! Thanks for your time.. Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. xx trollceptors will never be a thing
So you(?) say... But what do you know, for sure? Why not just make sure..? |
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:32:36 -
[2240] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:This is the kind of thing where actions always speak louder than words, so I'll just say that I hope that for many of you the actions you've seen from CCP recently have increased your trust that we will follow through.
Not really. I have no expectations of that changing.
You are absolutely correct, actions do speak louder than words. You have recently left a lot of stuff broken or half finished, despite being told numerous times. A quick release schedule is an awesome idea, but not if it leaves the game more and more broken as time goes on.
So, NO, I don't trust you to follow through at all.
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
688
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:33:33 -
[2241] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Arrendis wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:And again for all the Interceptors doomsayers. If you live in system, you just undock a SINGLE MARAUDER or carrier and putyour own entosis link to counter it. A bunch of interceptors will NOT kill you, and if then the fight escalates... that is exaclty what this system is supposed to create. Right! and while you're sure that bunch of interceptors won't kill you (by the way, seen it done. Also, you can't get remote reps while sov lasering), and your buddies are coming to save your carrier because you were wrong, all those other structures in the area are getting hit, too. Let's not say interceptors are going to be the doom of everything we see... but really, don't make the mistake of thinking that a single, heavily armored chesspiece is ever going to make a dent in asymmetrical warfare - which is what this system will set up. The TCU will be next to a POS, burn interceptors burn... The TCU will only put the name on the map. You can keep on the pos, but it can be totally ignored since it is now separate from the Ihub and the station.
Holding sov is a start, its what a lot of people want to do in Eve then they can scale up from that and an IHUB is part of that process as well as a station or perhaps something better going forward. Many players want to carve out their own space, this system gives it to them.
So what if someone comes along to lol roll an area, its a POS and a TCU and a bit of effort.
The IHUB is the one that will be trolled and this is the issue, that makes the space usable for a number of things in the game, however if you cannot defend the IHUB you should not be trying to use it. But that I don't care so much about because my objective is to hold a system.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:34:10 -
[2242] - Quote
AngeDeMort wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:AngeDeMort wrote:Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit.. Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist. These changes look fantastic! Thanks for your time.. Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. xx trollceptors will never be a thing So you(?) say... But what do you know, for sure? Why not just make sure..?
because you don't need to chase them. defenders just need to sit next to the node and cap it with their own entosis thingy and the "capture event" will stop. i'm also sure that with that fit that interceptor is harmless...
Just Add Water
|
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
273
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:35:07 -
[2243] - Quote
I have thought a bit about the lonely Interceptor or Trolletto Fleet problem. Dev Blog says with a link running you cannot warp away. That means if you manage to bring a Sniper to the grid, you might get a few shots before he burns off grid.
So if it was just like : 1. uncloak Panther 2. fire 3. 100M ISK killmail
then the thing would not be THAT much of an issue. We have to see how it plays out.
If it IS a problem then I suggest the following rule
You are committed: If the Entosis Link is broken because the pilot moves out of range oor tries to warp off - BAM! Backfire instantly brain fries the pilot, podkilling him but leaving the ship hull intact on the field (assuming it does not explode because of skill effects).
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30765
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:35:22 -
[2244] - Quote
You're missing the troll of the trollceptor. The troll isn't the ceptor, it's the article. Look at what it did to this thread.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:36:58 -
[2245] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:You're missing the troll of the trollceptor. The troll isn't the ceptor, it's the article. Look at what it did to this thread.
fck.
Just Add Water
|
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:37:09 -
[2246] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:[quote=Rain6637] People whined so much about force projection, but they always failed to study proper strategy and notice that the problem is force CONCENTRATION! Force projection is just a mean to achieve force concentration! The lack of a limit or diminishing return in force CONCENTRATION is the root of all evil in 0.0
It makes the war in eve closer to strategic level of real world wars and with more depth. It does not amtter if you had the whole damm red army or just a regiment of 1k soldiers. Takes exactly the same time to take a village of grape farmers in south of France with either force! Because you cannot make such massive force concentration!
With all due respect, you don't understand that people living in null don't think the way you think and don't like the warfare you like. That's why you're on a, really good, mercenary corporation and they're in nullsec. CCP neither understand this changes are made to comply with people like you, who don't live in nullsec, while against people who actually live there. Therefore, theres no need to be wise in order to realize the incoming massive failure of this concept. |
AngeDeMort
CyberMachine
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:37:41 -
[2247] - Quote
Black Ambulance wrote:AngeDeMort wrote:Black Ambulance wrote:AngeDeMort wrote:Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit.. Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist. These changes look fantastic! Thanks for your time.. Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. xx NO WAY , Ceptors are fine , if you can't counter them , move back to jita or new caldari ! Adopt or die , I want to fit that mod to my ibis too. Your ability to counter a troll fit with a troll fit of your own, in numbers, is not what is being sought here.. It is content and gameplay... Time-wasting, while it may float some peoples boats, is not really, I don't believe, something CCP wants, necessarily. By having a minumum ship-size fitting requirement the probability of actually engaging in combat/content increases... With trollceptors, the concept is NOT to engage in combat but rather in griefing-type activities! You wanting to fit one to your ibis says a lot... So, hopefully, it is not necessarily "no way.." The ibis was a joke , but you can counter the ceptors etc with anything with the link fitted too.
Apologies. Anything can be countered but it means everyone online, in system, must have access to the counter otherwise, it's unstoppable with "normal" combat ships - we are still talking about accessible content, right? Also, the reaction time must be really quick with the proposed timers, moreso made by the capabilities of the bubble immune speedsters... It's just leaving the door open for griefers when it should be closed, where possible..
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1567
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:39:16 -
[2248] - Quote
It is facinating to read how this thread has developed. I am fortunate in a way to only have had a limited time in the past living in null, as it does give one the opportunity to see things in a somewhat neutral way.
It is a little comical, but understandable, as in the phoebe changes to see so many proposals in here, which are solely designed to remove or limit the changes being implemented by CCP.
The interceptor hysteria for example. Naturally it will make unoccupied systems vunerable, and naturally they will be largely immune to gatecamps, but largely ignorable other than swatting like a fly in active and occupied reigons.
So naturally they must go as they will not allow large areas of space to be either unoccupied or rental empires (Gentle Sarcasm in case that was unclear)
The overall proposal by CCP is actually quite impressive, and also quite brave. Whilst some will no doubt (and have) dismiss it as faction warfare on steroids, it is a lot better thought out than that.
I would only like to add one small proposal, as I can see that small groups holding one constellation might suffer a little from having their sov reset and having to win it back repeatedly. And that is a bonus to occupying a constellation by automatically increasing it's true nullsec when the complete constillation is held.
Other than that, I look forward to seeing how this progresses, and with CCP responding swiftly now, with post rollout balancing of features, it bodes well for it's success.
I would like to add that it will be far more valuable to discuss how features can be iterated on or additions to help CCP reach their goals, than trying to turn the clock back or neuter their plans. That ship has already sailed, and will only lead to frustration ad disappointment, rather than feeling one has been part of the process.
Good luck to everyone, and I hope all our homes, become more fun and engaging to live in.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Nalha Saldana
Shattered Void Test Alliance Please Ignore
879
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:43:23 -
[2249] - Quote
How about giving all regions or constellations a randomly set 4 hour vulnerability window that never changes, talk about interesting landscape ^^ |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
816
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:43:38 -
[2250] - Quote
AngeDeMort wrote:Black Ambulance wrote:AngeDeMort wrote:Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit.. Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist. These changes look fantastic! Thanks for your time.. Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. xx NO WAY , Ceptors are fine , if you can't counter them , move back to jita or new caldari ! Adopt or die , I want to fit that mod to my ibis too. Your ability to counter a troll fit with a troll fit of your own, in numbers, is not what is being sought here.. It is content and gameplay... Time-wasting, while it may float some peoples boats, is not really, I don't believe, something CCP wants, necessarily. By having a minumum ship-size fitting requirement the probability of actually engaging in combat/content increases... With trollceptors, the concept is NOT to engage in combat but rather in griefing-type activities! You wanting to fit one to your ibis says a lot... So, hopefully, it is not necessarily "no way.."
At a 100m a pop, trollfits are going to get old fast. Lose 20, that's a carrier hull right there.
I repeat, the only people with anything to fear here are people who do not live in their own space in their OWN prime time. It's not like you're going to get ninja hit whilst you're all sleeping for goodness sakes. |
|
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:43:50 -
[2251] - Quote
trollceptor just make the module active at 50 km double the TV. problem solved I think ccp have realised the range is too much |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:44:01 -
[2252] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:Given EVE players abilities to use the mechanics differently than ccp envisioned there can be no foolproof system. But more risktaking without huge consequences and burning out alliance doers is a huge step in the right direction. It is also quite different to hold a small area, like a constellation, in comparison to holding multiple regions. This alone would reduce the stress levels of alliance leadership and burnout factor for us groups that dont have multiple redundancies in alliance leadership.
See, the reason we - and by 'we', I don't just mean Goons, I mean the majority of folks from the blocs - are focusing on the griefer angle is: we know what we'll do with this kind of tool available to us. Just in the CFC, we've got a SIG already devoted to doing this sort of thing, and this will just make it easier to go and make sure that smaller, less organized alliances don't hold sov. We won't actually take the systems - that would involve dropping a TCU and IHUB ourselves, after all... but how many of these less-organized alliances are going to put up with the freighter (not jump freighter) hauling needed if we're consistently burning down ihubs as fast as they drop them?
Because, you know, we'll do that kind of thing. We're jerks like that. Will we do it to every small alliance every day? Doubtful. But at the same time, if the intention for this system is to make things fun, and actually invigorate nullsec into more conflict between smaller blocs, then doesn't it behoove the devs to actually have an idea of how the blocs operate?
Because they don't. They don't have any idea of the levels of organization present in even HERO, and HERO organizes everything openly, on reddit. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the CFC has more metrics and data collection going on about New Eden than CCP itself does. I don't think for a moment that we intend to have that kind of level of OCD going on, but you know, that's just how dysfunctional a lot of us are.
And we've been generally proven right on things like this. Sentry drone assist, jump fatigue for haulers, the continuing need for nerfs to the Ishtar, etc, etc.
See, we legitimately want a more interesting, more vibrant, more fun nullsec. We live here, and let's face it, ratting is about as exciting as watching a test pattern. If it's more fun, then we're having more fun. We like fun. It's fun. So when we see CCP saying 'we want to make null more interesting and fluid, with more small actors', we like the idea... but we're wary of the execution. Especially when it comes in a form that people all around null are looking at and saying 'this is really only going to come to griefing. This won't generate fights like you think it will'.
We know what we'll do with this. And we're bastards enough to know that even if we think that what we'll do with it shouldn't be allowed... we'll do it anyway, because if we don't, someone else will do it to us. They'll probably do it to us either way, really.
So think about this: Most of the people telling you what horrible things we'll do? They're regular line members of the various blocs. The really dangerous, evil, sadistic bastards who come up with our true skullduggeries are likely plotting things far, far worse. If we're focusing on the griefer aspect of this a bit more than you think we should? It's not because we like being the boogeyman. It's because we want a good game to play, but we also know that if CCP hands us a pack of smokes and a lighter, we might smoke some of them... but we're also likely to melt the filters into a fiberglass shiv, aimed for your kidneys.
Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11990
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:44:25 -
[2253] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: I would like to add that it will be far more valuable to discuss how features can be iterated on or additions to help CCP reach their goals, than trying to turn the clock back or neuter their plans. That ship has already sailed, and will only lead to frustration ad disappointment, rather than feeling one has been part of the process.
Of course someone like you is trying to dishonestly squelch the feedback of others.
The entire reason these are being released so early, as the CCP dev specifically said, is so that they can take player feedback to hammer out the dents in this admitted rough draft. That includes the fitting of the Entosis mods.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:46:10 -
[2254] - Quote
One of the ideas I had back in the kugu days was to add some sort of border system. This system would make it so you can't really just run around and roll every system under someone's control, but you can take on their edge systems and reinforce them.
This would be both a good thing and a bad thing. It'd be good because this means that the defenders know where they'll be attacked and can focus their defense there, rather than across their entire space, and even if the E-link is fittable to interceptors, they can't derp around in every system you have and you have to run around after them and play whack-an-interceptor, and wars' progress will be measurable in where the line is. It's also bad because it actually encourages players banding together in a large alliance due to the inherent protection of that system.
So I realize that this, in the form I came up with on kugu, will probably make the situation even worse, it'll definitely make grinding down the space of someone who's left/gone inactive more of a grind than the goal we're setting ourselves when we're trying to make a new system, but I figure I'd just toss it out there anyways to see if it'll make someone else's creative juices go splort splorf. Maybe limit it to a per-constellation limit in some fashion, or something. I dunno. |
Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances CAStabouts
130
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:50:04 -
[2255] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:Allright guys, since they literally have an AFK cloaker in every one of our systems, we can't rat/min to build indices
So one AFK cloaker prevents you from doing anything in a system?
Seriously?
Another prime example of why sov needs an overhaul.
RE: lots of comments about the "prime time" being a bad idea...maybe you are missing the point.
Trying to organize one massive alliance (let's say, for the sake of argument, GSF) choose one "prime time" for all their possessions seems really dumb. Many commenters seem clear on that.
So the sensible response is the break into lots of smaller alliances that can hold smaller chunks of space and organize around optimal prime times for them.
Maybe that's the whole point. Maybe that would mean a lot more proper diplomacy in the metagame would be required to keep a really large group together.
Personally, after reading the dev blog, I am looking forward to seeing how it shakes out. If it results in turmoil across the mostly empty sov null space with lots of smaller groups trying to pick off systems all over the place...awesome, mission accomplished.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1569
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:50:51 -
[2256] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: I would like to add that it will be far more valuable to discuss how features can be iterated on or additions to help CCP reach their goals, than trying to turn the clock back or neuter their plans. That ship has already sailed, and will only lead to frustration ad disappointment, rather than feeling one has been part of the process.
Of course someone like you is trying to dishonestly squelch the feedback of others. The entire reason these are being released so early, as the CCP dev specifically said, is so that they can take player feedback to hammer out the dents in this admitted rough draft. That includes the fitting of the Entosis mods.
Of course player feedback is an incredibly valuable resource, they are increasing the size of their collective brainpool immensely. But when a little area of the brain is making suggestions that say " we want things to be unchanged, and if you prevent x we will get the same with a new name" then once one knows the reason for that comment, one can treat it accordingly.
However if the brainpool strives for the same goal, to make the new null as active, alive and engaging as possible, then each contributor can feel they have been part of that process. They can feel proud, and enjoy the results.
Tl;dr work to achieve great things, not to stop them.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11990
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:55:14 -
[2257] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: Of course player feedback is an incredibly valuable resource,
Except that isn't what you said.
What you said was to deride anyone who has a suggestion. What you said was "that ship has sailed", when the whole point of this thread existing, according to a literal dev, is to demonstrate that it has not.
Take your bullshit somewhere else.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:55:43 -
[2258] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:[ If a whole constellation comes out of rf in the same day and you want to win a majority of the timers this is exactly what will happen, and it unironically wont be very fun because fighting wont be the obejctive capturing as many nodes as fast as possible will be, then you may fight over the last few, but by that time 2 hours have passed and half of each fleet is ready to log. I mean im all for small gang but i want sov warfare to actualyly be warfare between medium sized fleets, not warfare between 10 man gangs all rushing ot caputre nodes.
So what we end up with here is sov warfare like old days - He with the most pos's takes sov, except the pos's have become nodes. Talk about recycling bad ideas.
- - - - - - - - - Constellation based sov warfare is a terribly bad idea no matter what objectives are put in place. If these changes are meant to open up opportunities for smaller groups to take and hold sov, making it constellation based rules out most smaller groups from taking or holding sov.
- - - - - - - - -
Quote: Our realistic goal for the new Sovereignty system is that a very small group of players in virtually any ship types should be able to completely conquer an undefended system with a few ~10-30 minute sessions spread across a few days. Is only realistic as long as there isn't a large group within range to hammer the small group into giving up on trying to take sov. Day 1, 25 mins, went well, got scouted but no attackers. Day 2, 8 mins in 100 man fleet arrives Day 3, start again, no or little opposition Day 4, large fleet arrives Day 5, screw it not wasting more time on a lose lose position
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
266
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:58:56 -
[2259] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Tl;dr work to achieve great things, not to stop them.
For the past 11 years now, CCP has fomented a community and an environment where the incentives are all pointing toward basically organizing into the biggest street gang you can, and then being an absolute jackass to everyone who's not in your gang.
The sad truth is, as much as many of us want better, we recognize that 'better' is not the behavior CCP has trained the EVE playerbase to strive toward, but rather 'more ruthless' and 'more sadistic'. I mean, look, even the people who identify as carebears, who live in highsec, who like to claim they're champions of the little guy, openly gloat and get off on 'tears'. They celebrate others' misery and pain.
And those are the angels of our community.
Sometimes, working to achieve great things has to take the form of looking for all the ways human nature can and will twist what's being offered, and telling the guy next to you at the bar what amounts to 'for the love of god, don't let me drive home unless I sober up'.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:00:42 -
[2260] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Vigilanta wrote:[ If a whole constellation comes out of rf in the same day and you want to win a majority of the timers this is exactly what will happen, and it unironically wont be very fun because fighting wont be the obejctive capturing as many nodes as fast as possible will be, then you may fight over the last few, but by that time 2 hours have passed and half of each fleet is ready to log. I mean im all for small gang but i want sov warfare to actualyly be warfare between medium sized fleets, not warfare between 10 man gangs all rushing ot caputre nodes.
So what we end up with here is sov warfare like old days - He with the most pos's takes sov, except the pos's have become nodes. Talk about recycling bad ideas. - - - - - - - - - Constellation based sov warfare is a terribly bad idea no matter what objectives are put in place. If these changes are meant to open up opportunities for smaller groups to take and hold sov, making it constellation based rules out most smaller groups from taking or holding sov. - - - - - - - - - Quote: Our realistic goal for the new Sovereignty system is that a very small group of players in virtually any ship types should be able to completely conquer an undefended system with a few ~10-30 minute sessions spread across a few days. Is only realistic as long as there isn't a large group within range to hammer the small group into giving up on trying to take sov. Day 1, 25 mins, went well, got scouted but no attackers. Day 2, 8 mins in 100 man fleet arrives Day 3, start again, no or little opposition Day 4, large fleet arrives Day 5, screw it not wasting more time on a lose lose position There exists no system which can be made which'll protect a smaller entity 100% from a bigger entity, because unless you put hard caps on something (which means they'll just bring more powerful toys than the little guy and the little guy's still ******), the bigger entity will use the mechanics to their advantage.
And even if you add a mechanic which says that the smaller the entity on field, the more poweful it gets, the bigger entity'll still faceroll the smaller one, as the bigger one can then be in more places at once with the "optimum fleet setup" than the smaller entity can. |
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
688
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:00:59 -
[2261] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Given EVE players abilities to use the mechanics differently than ccp envisioned there can be no foolproof system. But more risktaking without huge consequences and burning out alliance doers is a huge step in the right direction. It is also quite different to hold a small area, like a constellation, in comparison to holding multiple regions. This alone would reduce the stress levels of alliance leadership and burnout factor for us groups that dont have multiple redundancies in alliance leadership. See, the reason we - and by 'we', I don't just mean Goons, I mean the majority of folks from the blocs - are focusing on the griefer angle is: we know what we'll do with this kind of tool available to us. Just in the CFC, we've got a SIG already devoted to doing this sort of thing, and this will just make it easier to go and make sure that smaller, less organized alliances don't hold sov. We won't actually take the systems - that would involve dropping a TCU and IHUB ourselves, after all... but how many of these less-organized alliances are going to put up with the freighter (not jump freighter) hauling needed if we're consistently burning down ihubs as fast as they drop them? Because, you know, we'll do that kind of thing. We're jerks like that. Will we do it to every small alliance every day? Doubtful. But at the same time, if the intention for this system is to make things fun, and actually invigorate nullsec into more conflict between smaller blocs, then doesn't it behoove the devs to actually have an idea of how the blocs operate? Because they don't. They don't have any idea of the levels of organization present in even HERO, and HERO organizes everything openly, on reddit. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the CFC has more metrics and data collection going on about New Eden than CCP itself does. I don't think for a moment that we intend to have that kind of level of OCD going on, but you know, that's just how dysfunctional a lot of us are. And we've been generally proven right on things like this. Sentry drone assist, jump fatigue for haulers, the continuing need for nerfs to the Ishtar, etc, etc. See, we legitimately want a more interesting, more vibrant, more fun nullsec. We live here, and let's face it, ratting is about as exciting as watching a test pattern. If it's more fun, then we're having more fun. We like fun. It's fun. So when we see CCP saying 'we want to make null more interesting and fluid, with more small actors', we like the idea... but we're wary of the execution. Especially when it comes in a form that people all around null are looking at and saying 'this is really only going to come to griefing. This won't generate fights like you think it will'. We know what we'll do with this. And we're bastards enough to know that even if we think that what we'll do with it shouldn't be allowed... we'll do it anyway, because if we don't, someone else will do it to us. They'll probably do it to us either way, really. So think about this: Most of the people telling you what horrible things we'll do? They're regular line members of the various blocs. The really dangerous, evil, sadistic bastards who come up with our true skullduggeries are likely plotting things far, far worse. If we're focusing on the griefer aspect of this a bit more than you think we should? It's not because we like being the boogeyman. It's because we want a good game to play, but we also know that if CCP hands us a pack of smokes and a lighter, we might smoke some of them... but we're also likely to melt the filters into a fiberglass shiv, aimed for your kidneys. Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses?
You are assuming that people don't know what the Goons are like, we do, which is why the first step is to plant a TCU next to a POS and troll you back, we know you don't want to hold that sov. And as the siphons proved you do get bored, and of course many people will be doing it to you, so many people from hisec could for example get into an interceptor and do this to get back at you, many won't but some might.
EDIT: And for good measure I don't ever expect to be able to put an IHUB in, but that is not the point is it...
Ella's Snack bar
|
AngeDeMort
CyberMachine
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:01:12 -
[2262] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Of course player feedback is an incredibly valuable resource,
Except that isn't what you said. What you said was to deride anyone who has a suggestion. What you said was "that ship has sailed", when the whole point of this thread existing, according to a literal dev, is to demonstrate that it has not. Take your bullshit somewhere else.
+1 |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1571
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:03:11 -
[2263] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Of course player feedback is an incredibly valuable resource,
Except that isn't what you said. What you said was to deride anyone who has a suggestion. What you said was "that ship has sailed", when the whole point of this thread existing, according to a literal dev, is to demonstrate that it has not. Take your bullshit somewhere else.
Kaarous, whilst I try to reply to you politely, please do not make things up and put words into my mouth that were not said. Change will occur, and that is certain. How the change plays out in the following months, we will see. But in a system based around active occupancy, removing the tools, or neutering those that enable that, is not going to work too well is it? But you of course know this. Which is why you wish to remove the tools.
But it is a free forum, you are free to campaign for a nullsec that is as stagnant as currently, with a different name. You know your own motivations and goals, and we all can draw our own conclusions as to the validity of your posts. No one needs pointers or guidance for that.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:05:17 -
[2264] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Given EVE players abilities to use the mechanics differently than ccp envisioned there can be no foolproof system. But more risktaking without huge consequences and burning out alliance doers is a huge step in the right direction. It is also quite different to hold a small area, like a constellation, in comparison to holding multiple regions. This alone would reduce the stress levels of alliance leadership and burnout factor for us groups that dont have multiple redundancies in alliance leadership. Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses?
I know you will And thats fair enough imo. Different folks different playstyles. Its not worse than afk camping or still broken bomber power. But with a 4 hour window that means you will have to choose. Sucks to be the one you choose that day or period of time. But we are herd people, so lots of activity draws all of us like bees (yes, I know).
What I am much more concerned about is the ability to use the entosis module to disable station services at any given time. Its possible to do this today by just using a lot of dps, but then you have to field a larger fleet in order to not get structure-shooting-fatigue syndrome. Having one ship go into a system/constellation where all the players are US timezone and singly take out all station services in a very short timespan is pretty broken.
SBU's being removed is \o/ on the other hand. After Phoebe there have been some real interesting emerging gameplay like Gorgon Empire opening their region to other groups without going amarr victor and kos lists (who isnt on KOS list now btw). There is definitely need for tuning in this system, but the sov aspect is the least important in what 1 module can achieve. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:09:30 -
[2265] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: Kaarous, whilst I try to reply to you politely, please do not make things up and put words into my mouth that were not said.
I directly quoted you.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Quote: But in a system based around active occupancy, removing the tools, or neutering those that enable that, is not going to work too well is it? But you of course know this. Which is why you wish to remove the tools.
We're not talking about neutering, *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
This is the conceptualization phase. This is where we have the discussion as to whether or not the overpowered interceptor hulls, or any frigate, get access to this.
Stop trying to squash the discussion that is this thread's literal intent just because you'd rather crow about your theoretical philosophical victory.
"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
266
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:09:40 -
[2266] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:You are assuming that people don't know what the Goons are like, we do, which is why the first step is to plant a TCU next to a POS and troll you back, we know you don't want to hold that sov. And as the siphons proved you do get bored, and of course many people will be doing it to you, so many people from hisec could for example get into an interceptor and do this to get back at you, many won't but some might.
EDIT: And for good measure I don't ever expect to be able to put an IHUB in, but that is not the point is it...
Well, putting the ihub in is what's going to make your space reasonably profitable. You might also want a station at some point.
And see, you're looking at Goons. I wasn't. I'm looking at all of us. You think Pizza's going to not hit everyone they can with this? You think Black Legion won't? Or PL? You think Massadeth's gonna just mess with the CFC? Or that the Southeast won't be a wretched patchwork of N3 and the Russians trying to harass one another now that the supercapital blobs won't stop RUS?
We are not nice people. And honestly, we don't much care who we're not nice to. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:11:00 -
[2267] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Vigilanta wrote:[ If a whole constellation comes out of rf in the same day and you want to win a majority of the timers this is exactly what will happen, and it unironically wont be very fun because fighting wont be the obejctive capturing as many nodes as fast as possible will be, then you may fight over the last few, but by that time 2 hours have passed and half of each fleet is ready to log. I mean im all for small gang but i want sov warfare to actualyly be warfare between medium sized fleets, not warfare between 10 man gangs all rushing ot caputre nodes.
So what we end up with here is sov warfare like old days - He with the most pos's takes sov, except the pos's have become nodes. Talk about recycling bad ideas. - - - - - - - - - Constellation based sov warfare is a terribly bad idea no matter what objectives are put in place. If these changes are meant to open up opportunities for smaller groups to take and hold sov, making it constellation based rules out most smaller groups from taking or holding sov. - - - - - - - - - Quote: Our realistic goal for the new Sovereignty system is that a very small group of players in virtually any ship types should be able to completely conquer an undefended system with a few ~10-30 minute sessions spread across a few days. Is only realistic as long as there isn't a large group within range to hammer the small group into giving up on trying to take sov. Day 1, 25 mins, went well, got scouted but no attackers. Day 2, 8 mins in 100 man fleet arrives Day 3, start again, no or little opposition Day 4, large fleet arrives Day 5, screw it not wasting more time on a lose lose position There exists no system which can be made which'll protect a smaller entity 100% from a bigger entity, because unless you put hard caps on something (which means they'll just bring more powerful toys than the little guy and the little guy's still ******), the bigger entity will use the mechanics to their advantage. And even if you add a mechanic which says that the smaller the entity on field, the more poweful it gets, the bigger entity'll still faceroll the smaller one, as the bigger one can then be in more places at once with the "optimum fleet setup" than the smaller entity can. I completely agree with you.. I just hope CCP can see the problem too. Small groups will only ever take and hold sov at the behest of the controlling large coalitions.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
AngeDeMort
CyberMachine
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:11:28 -
[2268] - Quote
afkalt wrote:AngeDeMort wrote:Black Ambulance wrote:AngeDeMort wrote:Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit.. Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist. These changes look fantastic! Thanks for your time.. Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. xx NO WAY , Ceptors are fine , if you can't counter them , move back to jita or new caldari ! Adopt or die , I want to fit that mod to my ibis too. Your ability to counter a troll fit with a troll fit of your own, in numbers, is not what is being sought here.. It is content and gameplay... Time-wasting, while it may float some peoples boats, is not really, I don't believe, something CCP wants, necessarily. By having a minumum ship-size fitting requirement the probability of actually engaging in combat/content increases... With trollceptors, the concept is NOT to engage in combat but rather in griefing-type activities! You wanting to fit one to your ibis says a lot... So, hopefully, it is not necessarily "no way.." At a 100m a pop, trollfits are going to get old fast. Lose 20, that's a carrier hull right there. I repeat, the only people with anything to fear here are people who do not live in their own space in their OWN prime time. It's not like you're going to get ninja hit whilst you're all sleeping for goodness sakes.
But you are, m8. You're going to have tools come in, system to system and give you a factor times more work fixing it than them causing it... All these folk saying, I'll just undock my sniper and blat them are b#&lshitters! They'll do that if they've got superiority and eyes everywhere but not if they're logged on in sys alone... Even if they log on alts to scout it before engaging.. the timer has flipped (you have lots of work to do....).. If they undock a combat ship, they have to warp to site (assuming off scan) and then see an uncatchable inty flitting around... They then warp back to get another ship... timer has flipped... I don't know mate, but all this hot-air bravado does nothing to get to the bottom of things... The goons are saying they'll do it to show it's a flawed mechanic and even if it that means they're secretly afraid of it being done to them (which is a good reason to condone it), it's still annoying grief-type game play... Stamp it out! |
Papa Digger
OEG The Gorgon Empire
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:12:34 -
[2269] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses? I think you'll get bored to alarmclocking to grief euro timers every 2 days.. emm, in 1-2 weeks. :)
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1571
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:13:17 -
[2270] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Tl;dr work to achieve great things, not to stop them. For the past 11 years now, CCP has fomented a community and an environment where the incentives are all pointing toward basically organizing into the biggest street gang you can, and then being an absolute jackass to everyone who's not in your gang. The sad truth is, as much as many of us want better, we recognize that 'better' is not the behavior CCP has trained the EVE playerbase to strive toward, but rather 'more ruthless' and 'more sadistic'. I mean, look, even the people who identify as carebears, who live in highsec, who like to claim they're champions of the little guy, openly gloat and get off on 'tears'. They celebrate others' misery and pain. And those are the angels of our community. Sometimes, working to achieve great things has to take the form of looking for all the ways human nature can and will twist what's being offered, and telling the guy next to you at the bar what amounts to 'for the love of god, don't let me drive home unless I sober up'. There is truth in what you say, but you may have noticed, a subtle change is occuring. CCP have moved away from promoting the "antisocial" behaviour, into a new path of giving us the tools to build our own universe and interactions, and seeing what we build.
Whilst short term the results may look the same, in reality, there is a change starting to ripple across, and I believe that the more extreme will begin to be shunned and isolated, by US, not by CCP and withering away to background noise.
Without the spotlight, and reviled by most, they lose the "oxygen" of attention and like spoilt toddlers, grow up. And become part of the community.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
315
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:13:18 -
[2271] - Quote
CCP_Fozzie, what i'd really like to know is the concept of acceptable group size this is aimed at for people to hold sov.
From the parameters given, the goal seems to be for sov holding alliances to control at a minimum a complete constellation and be able to frequently ship replacement sov structures into their territory. What's the minimum number of prime-time-active players you'd estimate necessary for that? 50? 100? 200?
Knowing the ballpark of player numbers you're aiming at would make it much easier to give constructive input. |
Alex Boeing
Sturm. Infinity Space.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:13:28 -
[2272] - Quote
Since i've started playing EVE in august 2014 every patch was making my game more interesting, but this patch WILL BE THE GREATEST! I'm not joking. Please, release IT! Don't listen for those old players who are crying about it, this is just because of their inertia.
I'm living in nulls, I like claim wars, i like PVP, i dislike that enormous rent empires, those hours spended in atacks of Ihub or station. This will be the greatest patch ever. It will release unlimited opportunities in PVP tactics while defending or atacking a system, using the landscape of constellation, spies, week sides of enemy. I'm looking forward to see it very soon!
This is my first time i came to this Forum, and i came only to say this, because it is very important for me and a lot of new players whom i talked about this patch. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1571
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:15:07 -
[2273] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Kaarous, whilst I try to reply to you politely, please do not make things up and put words into my mouth that were not said.
I directly quoted you. Please do better at keeping track of your various lies. Quote: But in a system based around active occupancy, removing the tools, or neutering those that enable that, is not going to work too well is it? But you of course know this. Which is why you wish to remove the tools. We're not talking about neutering, you dishonest toad. This is the conceptualization phase. This is where we have the discussion as to whether or not the overpowered interceptor hulls, or any frigate, get access to this. Stop trying to squash the discussion that is this thread's literal intent just because you'd rather crow about your theoretical philosophical victory.
Please see my comments above regarding antisocial behaviour.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Anthar Thebess
947
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:15:47 -
[2274] - Quote
Potential holes in this sov capture module : ( using T2 Version of the module ~250km range)
1. I have T2 version , because of the sensor booster i can extend my lock range so i can use this module from 220km. What happens if i shut down one of my sensor boostes? Will module still cycles or shut down instantly.
2. I sit at 249 km from my target, i have max lock range and when something happens i fly away to leave max module range. What will happen?
3. Someone is contesting station. System is cyno jammed. So i undock in my max tanked carrier and use module on a station. They have 1 active module i have active module - will this make sov capture process pause or it will just slow down, as my module is working slower because of the ship i am using.
Simple suggestion. Can phantasm have 1% bonus to module cycle per some cruiser level. I just love idea where those spiked , mind controlling ships spawn around just to get your space. So this small vile bonus to fly a ship made by mind controlling race. "We come for you space and your people" Currently : - angel ships warp faster - serpentis ships web - guristas ships have elite drones - sansha ships have ... spikes
At 40min timer using phantasm will save you 2minutes.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
266
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:21:07 -
[2275] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:There is truth in what you say, but you may have noticed, a subtle change is occuring. CCP have moved away from promoting the "antisocial" behaviour, into a new path of giving us the tools to build our own universe and interactions, and seeing what we build.
Whilst short term the results may look the same, in reality, there is a change starting to ripple across, and I believe that the more extreme will begin to be shunned and isolated, by US, not by CCP and withering away to background noise.
Without the spotlight, and reviled by most, they lose the "oxygen" of attention and like spoilt toddlers, grow up. And become part of the community.
Unfortunately, I believe I have a dimmer view of human nature than you do. The lowest common denominator, the guttertrash, the grifters and scum... heck, the downright sociopathic. These are now, and always have been, the ones who are willing to be ruthless enough to get ahead in any community and any society, and they inevitably shape that society.
Eve has been, and continues to be, one of the best complex sociology experiments in the world. And it's still driven by predators. |
Papa Digger
OEG The Gorgon Empire
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:21:45 -
[2276] - Quote
Entos link activated "for defence" must work without "empty cycle". Or you haven't time to counter a station service attack by using your link (only killing attacker). |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1571
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:21:57 -
[2277] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Please see my comments above regarding antisocial behaviour.
Nothing, then? I thought not, and I can't say I expected better from the likes of you anyway. I directly quoted your admission that you're just here to squash discourse. If you don't actually have anything to bother contributing to the discussion, then just shut up.
I regret you fail to understand a reply clearly identifying it's goals. Also to who it referred.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:22:32 -
[2278] - Quote
"AngelDeMort" wrote: But you are, m8. You're going to have tools come in, system to system and give you a factor times more work fixing it than them causing it... All these folk saying, I'll just undock my sniper and blat them are b#&lshitters! They'll do that if they've got superiority and eyes everywhere but not if they're logged on in sys alone... Even if they log on alts to scout it before engaging.. the timer has flipped (you have lots of work to do....).. If they undock a combat ship, they have to warp to site (assuming off scan) and then see an uncatchable inty flitting around... They then warp back to get another ship... timer has flipped... I don't know mate, but all this hot-air bravado does nothing to get to the bottom of things... The goons are saying they'll do it to show it's a flawed mechanic and even if it that means they're secretly afraid of it being done to them (which is a good reason to condone it), it's still annoying grief-type game play... Stamp it out!
Griefing is pretty much such a standard gameplay in EVE that hoping for mechanics which prohibit them is on par with hoping Russia or USA will disband their military power tomorrow. Gamers who havent played EVE usually know 2 things about us:
1. We f**k each other over constantly 2. Large battles
A lot of times the latter has been over Sov and others it has been because of jumping instead of Bridging. Number 1 is done because we can. I dont see any mechanics from ccp will change us in that respect.
At least this system will make it viable to invade Providence (why is another matter) that has 7 systems without a station. Entosis module allows for this without going apeshit crazy.
AU timezone seems to become the redheaded stepchild nobody loves though, since they wont have a lot of timers they realistically can touch. The only time would be Rus-Rus and there arent enough AU's to do that.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:23:02 -
[2279] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Please see my comments above regarding antisocial behaviour.
Nothing, then? I thought not, and I can't say I expected better from the likes of you anyway. I directly quoted your admission that you're just here to squash discourse. If you don't actually have anything to bother contributing to the discussion, then just shut up. I regret you fail to understand a reply clearly identifying it's goals.
There's nothing to understand.
As always, you have no point to make. Just empty repetition and pointless grandstanding. Your last few posts aren't even remotely on topic, either.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:23:30 -
[2280] - Quote
As far as time zone mechanics I think a binary window is contrary to the spirit of eve, as many have voiced. Eve is a place where you can get your **** handed to you 23/7 and I don't ever want that to change. If my enemy wants to alarm clock all 1,000 members of their alliance to catch me at my weakest time, more power to em, that's the stuff that makes eve great.
That said, with how it easy it seems to be to reinforce a structure, I do think it should be more difficult (read not impossible) to do so outside of the set prime time. Off the top off i my head i can think of a few options to (potentially) improve on the system.
1) Alliance chooses a Prime Time as in the suggested model but outside of the time zone is a flat multiplier that increases capture time instead of disabling it completely.
2) Alliance chooses a Prime Time. The further away from that time you are the longer it takes to capture.
One issue with this is that fighting after the Prime Time would be fighting an uphill battle as capture time increases. The opposite would be true in the hours leading up to it.
3) Alliance chooses a Prime Time and an "Off Time", these could be any length. During Prime Time the defense would be a challenge and during Off Time it would be easy. The time in between the two would be a medium.
There's lots of room for maneuverability in this option. Prime Time could be a super vulnerable 1 hour period during which structures could be reinforced super easy and you need max dudes every day on that hour, or it could be a 4 hour period much like the plan layed out by CCP.
I think there's potential in this if executed correctly. During Prime Time you would be forced to have high numbers online and to be ready to respond quickly to invading fleets. During the shoulder hours you could mange it with with moderate numbers and pings to people who are actually awake, and during Off Time a system with high occupancy could be defended with a skeleton crew.
TL;DR timezones - good, binary attack window - possibly the worst idea I've ever seen. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15381
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:23:50 -
[2281] - Quote
Papa Digger wrote: I think you'll get bored to alarmclocking to grief euro timers every 2 days.. emm, in 1-2 weeks. :)
We have yet to get bored of grinding towers, what makes you think we will get bored of an activity that will cause even more damage?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:25:55 -
[2282] - Quote
Alex Boeing wrote: Since i've started playing EVE in august 2014 every patch was making my game more interesting, but this patch WILL BE THE GREATEST! I'm not joking. Please, release IT! Don't listen for those old players who are crying about it, this is just because of their inertia.
I'm living in nulls, I like claim wars, i like PVP, i dislike that enormous rent empires, those hours spended in atacks of Ihub or station. This will be the greatest patch ever. It will release unlimited opportunities in PVP tactics while defending or atacking a system, using the landscape of constellation, spies, week sides of enemy. I'm looking forward to see it very soon!
This is my first time i came to this Forum, and i came only to say this, because it is very important for me and a lot of new players whom i talked about this patch.
Appreciate your point of view but in this case, it is the older players who have learned over years of sov grinding that this will not work as intended. By using the "landscape of a constellation", you mean warping to nodes in different systems and reinforcing them? Yep that will be awesome, until the cloaky camper watching the nodes for the nearest large group, reports back that you are there. Then it is only a matter of time before your little bands of frontier sov takers are mutilated by the blok neighbours who don't want you there. Or did they just bring a 100 man fleet in to destroy your 20 man gang, just because they could and they got a laugh out of it.
It is clear CCP is trying but mini games and sov is just not a good combination.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
689
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:25:57 -
[2283] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Dracvlad wrote:You are assuming that people don't know what the Goons are like, we do, which is why the first step is to plant a TCU next to a POS and troll you back, we know you don't want to hold that sov. And as the siphons proved you do get bored, and of course many people will be doing it to you, so many people from hisec could for example get into an interceptor and do this to get back at you, many won't but some might.
EDIT: And for good measure I don't ever expect to be able to put an IHUB in, but that is not the point is it... Well, putting the ihub in is what's going to make your space reasonably profitable. You might also want a station at some point. And see, you're looking at Goons. I wasn't. I'm looking at all of us. You think Pizza's going to not hit everyone they can with this? You think Black Legion won't? Or PL? You think Massadeth's gonna just mess with the CFC? Or that the Southeast won't be a wretched patchwork of N3 and the Russians trying to harass one another now that the supercapital blobs won't stop RUS? We are not nice people. And honestly, we don't much care who we're not nice to.
The IHUB is what will be attacked and that is the weak spot in this change, I would advise CCP to make it so that the affects only get removed when it is destroyed. For things that rely on an IHUB I would have the Jump bridge require a IHUB in system for it to be anchored and onlined thats all. In terms of Super or Titan production the IHUB enables you to start a job, but if its removed once you started no issue. Then trolling becomes less of an issue, its the tweaks that really matter here.
I do of course recognise all the other entities that like having fun, you are not the only ones, but if you come to troll and only find a TCU next to a death star who is trolling who?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
315
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:26:40 -
[2284] - Quote
Varg Krugar wrote: On that note, I'm slightly surprised that the Entosis Link does not require some sort of Fuel? Was that thrown out because of the possible runaway nature of capture events or to lower the bar for entry into "casual" Sov games even further?
Nice idea, I wonder if noone came up with that before or if it was rejected.
A fuel requirement would also make stalemate situations less ignore-worthy and alleviate the interceptor concerns somewhat. |
Alex Boeing
Sturm. Infinity Space.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:29:43 -
[2285] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Alex Boeing wrote: Since i've started playing EVE in august 2014 every patch was making my game more interesting, but this patch WILL BE THE GREATEST! I'm not joking. Please, release IT! Don't listen for those old players who are crying about it, this is just because of their inertia.
I'm living in nulls, I like claim wars, i like PVP, i dislike that enormous rent empires, those hours spended in atacks of Ihub or station. This will be the greatest patch ever. It will release unlimited opportunities in PVP tactics while defending or atacking a system, using the landscape of constellation, spies, week sides of enemy. I'm looking forward to see it very soon!
This is my first time i came to this Forum, and i came only to say this, because it is very important for me and a lot of new players whom i talked about this patch.
Appreciate your point of view but in this case, it is the older players who have learned over years of sov grinding that this will not work as intended. By using the "landscape of a constellation", you mean warping to nodes in different systems and reinforcing them? Yep that will be awesome, until the cloaky camper watching the nodes for the nearest large group, reports back that you are there. Then it is only a matter of time before your little bands of frontier sov takers are mutilated by the blok neighbours who don't want you there. Or did they just bring a 100 man fleet in to destroy your 20 man gang, just because they could and they got a laugh out of it. It is clear CCP is trying but mini games and sov is just not a good combination.
The map of EVE is enormous. I will just find that constelleation where i won't be atacked with fleet of 100+ members, and leave this big fights for those who possible to summon such big fleet) cloacked camps are really no problem. Open your imagination and u will find all answers u need.
And yes!! This will work, because of new players, new types of mind. Old players will resist, try to make things going like it was before, but will loose) |
Papa Digger
OEG The Gorgon Empire
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:29:46 -
[2286] - Quote
Arrendis wrote: Really? What makes you say that? I just spent a month in Delve in a carrier doing nothing but functioning as a mobile supply depot for 40 other CFC guys living down there and fleeting up 23/7 just to produce timers.
And next time we deploy, I'll do it again.
Capturing claim require doing something. :) People ready to alarmclock for important things. People don't like to alarmclocking for grief.
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
271
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:29:56 -
[2287] - Quote
Ugly Eric wrote: ppl worried of the "trollceptors" or any superfast ships attacking from 200+km. Wake up lads! All the defender needs to do, is that they undock 1 ship per structure to sov-laser their own structure. If a sov entity having 50+ structures cannot undock 50+ defenders on their primetime, they simply do not deserve those amounts of sov.
What you are saying is patently false. Interceptors can kite and deal DPS to ships of any size. Undocking one ship per structure will never be enough even if we assume there will be one unstoppable, uncatchable interceptor per structure. The Interceptor trolling with sovereignty components will either kite the responding 'one ship' and easily deal with it, or if the one responding ship poses a realistic threat against it, will just speed out of that grid before it can be caught.
There is absolutely nothing that an attacker needs to commit, there is zero risk that any contestant needs to take while the defender needs to commit and risk everything. Even assuming that the asset involved in contesting (Interceptor) is actually risked here, it looks ridiculous as a fitted interceptor is just a throw away ship, while gains that can be contested in sovereignty take time, a lot of collective effort and ISK to materialize.
This is why Fozzie & Co needs to wake up, stop pretending to be sociologists attempting to change human behaviour and propensity to collude and collaborate for mutual gains, and instead, smell the ashes of risk-reward balance they have burned here.
Developers need to focus on good sandbox design, not pretending to be spaceship-Marx, spaceship-Engels, spaceship-Arendt or (even though she isn't an accepted sociologist like the names I mentioned) spaceship-Rand. Human nature is what human nature has always been, a rag tag team of game developers such as yourselves are not going to change it in this game by railroading the sandbox principles and any tangible risk-reward balance that was established previously in EVE's design.
Now, any EVE player worth their salt and carefully following CCP as a company know very well that they are bleeding out subscribers (therefore, revenue) and even the Phoebe changes that were supposed to stop this bleed out did not end up alleviating it. What I'm saying here is that the development philosophy that seems to be taken up at CCP which hilariously reads out as "we will change human behaviour, we will cause more spaceships to explode over no tangible benefits to be had, and this will create new revenue for us".
Now contrary to what Fozzie, Seagull and the rest seems to believe, we, the player base that actively play, invest in and influence the world of EVE are not a congregation of stupid sheep. We will not suddenly start to spend our in-game and real-life resources for meaningless destruction and conflict that offer us no rewards just because a developer like Fozzie or an executive producer like Seagull decided that they prefer that we should in order for CCP to raise more revenue from an already dwindling player base in a 10+ years old game.
Wake up, and smell the ashes CCP. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
689
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:37:00 -
[2288] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Ugly Eric wrote: ppl worried of the "trollceptors" or any superfast ships attacking from 200+km. Wake up lads! All the defender needs to do, is that they undock 1 ship per structure to sov-laser their own structure. If a sov entity having 50+ structures cannot undock 50+ defenders on their primetime, they simply do not deserve those amounts of sov.
What you are saying is patently false. Interceptors can kite and deal DPS to ships of any size. Undocking one ship per structure will never be enough even if we assume there will be one unstoppable, uncatchable interceptor per structure. The Interceptor trolling with sovereignty components will either kite the responding 'one ship' and easily deal with it, or if the one responding ship poses a realistic threat against it, will just speed out of that grid before it can be caught. There is absolutely nothing that an attacker needs to commit, there is zero risk that any contestant needs to take while the defender needs to commit and risk everything. Even assuming that the asset involved in contesting (Interceptor) is actually risked here, it looks ridiculous as a fitted interceptor is just a throw away ship, while gains that can be contested in sovereignty take time, a lot of collective effort and ISK to materialize. This is why Fozzie & Co needs to wake up, stop pretending to be sociologists attempting to change human behaviour and propensity to collude and collaborate for mutual gains, and instead, smell the ashes of risk-reward balance they have burned here. Developers need to focus on good sandbox design, not pretending to be spaceship-Marx, spaceship-Engels, spaceship-Arendt or (even though she isn't an accepted sociologist like the names I mentioned) spaceship-Rand. Human nature is what human nature has always been, a rag tag team of game developers such as yourselves are not going to change it in this game by railroading the sandbox principles and any tangible risk-reward balance that was established previously in EVE's design. Now, any EVE player worth their salt and carefully following CCP as a company know very well that they are bleeding out subscribers (therefore, revenue) and even the Phoebe changes that were supposed to stop this bleed out did not end up alleviating it. What I'm saying here is that the development philosophy that seems to be taken up at CCP which hilariously reads out as "we will change human behaviour, we will cause more spaceships to explode over no tangible benefits to be had, and this will create new revenue for us". Now contrary to what you guys might believe, we, the player base that actively play, invest in and influence the world of EVE are not a congregation of stupid sheep, and we will not suddenly start to spend our in-game and real-life resources for meaningless destruction and conflict for no rewards just because a developer like Fozzie and his team decided that he prefers that we should in order to make more money. No.
An interceptor will not kite with a T1 module, as it has a limited range if it wants to put the sov module or station into reinforced, so it will need to be a T2 module and at 80m a pop that is a nice drop, in fact 20m on the T1 is not bad. For a possible 80m drop its actually a good target.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Papa Digger
OEG The Gorgon Empire
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:41:51 -
[2289] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Papa Digger wrote: I think you'll get bored to alarmclocking to grief euro timers every 2 days.. emm, in 1-2 weeks. :)
We have yet to get bored of grinding towers, what makes you think we will get bored of an activity that will cause even more damage? Why you think that you will be playing only in offence every day? :) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
816
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:42:54 -
[2290] - Quote
AngeDeMort wrote:afkalt wrote:AngeDeMort wrote:Black Ambulance wrote:AngeDeMort wrote:Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit.. Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist. These changes look fantastic! Thanks for your time.. Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. xx NO WAY , Ceptors are fine , if you can't counter them , move back to jita or new caldari ! Adopt or die , I want to fit that mod to my ibis too. Your ability to counter a troll fit with a troll fit of your own, in numbers, is not what is being sought here.. It is content and gameplay... Time-wasting, while it may float some peoples boats, is not really, I don't believe, something CCP wants, necessarily. By having a minumum ship-size fitting requirement the probability of actually engaging in combat/content increases... With trollceptors, the concept is NOT to engage in combat but rather in griefing-type activities! You wanting to fit one to your ibis says a lot... So, hopefully, it is not necessarily "no way.." At a 100m a pop, trollfits are going to get old fast. Lose 20, that's a carrier hull right there. I repeat, the only people with anything to fear here are people who do not live in their own space in their OWN prime time. It's not like you're going to get ninja hit whilst you're all sleeping for goodness sakes. But you are, m8. You're going to have tools come in, system to system and give you a factor times more work fixing it than them causing it... All these folk saying, I'll just undock my sniper and blat them are b#&lshitters! They'll do that if they've got superiority and eyes everywhere but not if they're logged on in sys alone... Even if they log on alts to scout it before engaging.. the timer has flipped (you have lots of work to do....).. If they undock a combat ship, they have to warp to site (assuming off scan) and then see an uncatchable inty flitting around... They then warp back to get another ship... timer has flipped... I don't know mate, but all this hot-air bravado does nothing to get to the bottom of things... The goons are saying they'll do it to show it's a flawed mechanic and even if it that means they're secretly afraid of it being done to them (which is a good reason to condone it), it's still annoying grief-type game play... Stamp it out!
I doubt it. All you're going to need is a cruiser with a tank and a link.
"oh but the inty will just warp off!" What, with a module that blocks warp? Let me know how that works out for you.
If you're so spread you can't keep tabs on your own sov in your OWN designated PRIME window, you shouldn't have it in the first place.
People didnt keep doing it with siphons, they're not going to do for long with these either.
There will be no magical drive bys when your whole alliance is sleeping, there will be limited use of 100m trollceptors because they'll be farmed for fun in short order once people adjust.
Hell, everyone will just toss the T1 mods on cyno alts in punishers. Voilla, system defended. A 100m interceptor isnt going to come in for the kill in case it gets popped. |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30765
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:45:30 -
[2291] - Quote
got bored.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
271
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:45:37 -
[2292] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Ugly Eric wrote: ppl worried of the "trollceptors" or any superfast ships attacking from 200+km. Wake up lads! All the defender needs to do, is that they undock 1 ship per structure to sov-laser their own structure. If a sov entity having 50+ structures cannot undock 50+ defenders on their primetime, they simply do not deserve those amounts of sov.
What you are saying is patently false. Interceptors can kite and deal DPS to ships of any size. Undocking one ship per structure will never be enough even if we assume there will be one unstoppable, uncatchable interceptor per structure. The Interceptor trolling with sovereignty components will either kite the responding 'one ship' and easily deal with it, or if the one responding ship poses a realistic threat against it, will just speed out of that grid before it can be caught. There is absolutely nothing that an attacker needs to commit, there is zero risk that any contestant needs to take while the defender needs to commit and risk everything. Even assuming that the asset involved in contesting (Interceptor) is actually risked here, it looks ridiculous as a fitted interceptor is just a throw away ship, while gains that can be contested in sovereignty take time, a lot of collective effort and ISK to materialize. This is why Fozzie & Co needs to wake up, stop pretending to be sociologists attempting to change human behaviour and propensity to collude and collaborate for mutual gains, and instead, smell the ashes of risk-reward balance they have burned here. Developers need to focus on good sandbox design, not pretending to be spaceship-Marx, spaceship-Engels, spaceship-Arendt or (even though she isn't an accepted sociologist like the names I mentioned) spaceship-Rand. Human nature is what human nature has always been, a rag tag team of game developers such as yourselves are not going to change it in this game by railroading the sandbox principles and any tangible risk-reward balance that was established previously in EVE's design. Now, any EVE player worth their salt and carefully following CCP as a company know very well that they are bleeding out subscribers (therefore, revenue) and even the Phoebe changes that were supposed to stop this bleed out did not end up alleviating it. What I'm saying here is that the development philosophy that seems to be taken up at CCP which hilariously reads out as "we will change human behaviour, we will cause more spaceships to explode over no tangible benefits to be had, and this will create new revenue for us". Now contrary to what you guys might believe, we, the player base that actively play, invest in and influence the world of EVE are not a congregation of stupid sheep, and we will not suddenly start to spend our in-game and real-life resources for meaningless destruction and conflict for no rewards just because a developer like Fozzie and his team decided that he prefers that we should in order to make more money. No. An interceptor will not kite with a T1 module, as it has a limited range if it wants to put the sov module or station into reinforced, so it will need to be a T2 module and at 80m a pop that is a nice drop, in fact 20m on the T1 is not bad. For a possible 80m drop its actually a good target.
That assumes you will be able to catch the said interceptor, which will be on the move at extreme velocities and will be able to evade everything that's coming his way by blazing out of the grid at MWD speed.
To cite a real world example, back in the 70s and 80s, Soviets tried to intercept SR-71 sorties with surface to air missiles too, but the standard procedure for the SR-71 pilot to evade the missiles was simply to change course and increase velocity. Noo SR-71s ended up getting downed by Soviets. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
266
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:45:47 -
[2293] - Quote
Papa Digger wrote:Capturing claim require doing something. :) People ready to alarmclock for important things. People don't like to alarmclocking for grief.
like I said: fleets active, dropping SBUs and hitting IHUBs, 23 hrs a day, 7 days a week, for a month solid. This will just make our lives easier - no need for all the dps to kill an ihub, only 1 timer instead of 2...
I do hope we continue to kill a defending supercarrier with every deployment, though. |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:49:59 -
[2294] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Ugly Eric wrote: ppl worried of the "trollceptors" or any superfast ships attacking from 200+km. Wake up lads! All the defender needs to do, is that they undock 1 ship per structure to sov-laser their own structure. If a sov entity having 50+ structures cannot undock 50+ defenders on their primetime, they simply do not deserve those amounts of sov.
What you are saying is patently false. Interceptors can kite and deal DPS to ships of any size. Undocking one ship per structure will never be enough even if we assume there will be one unstoppable, uncatchable interceptor per structure. The Interceptor trolling with sovereignty components will either kite the responding 'one ship' and easily deal with it, or if the one responding ship poses a realistic threat against it, will just speed out of that grid before it can be caught. There is absolutely nothing that an attacker needs to commit, there is zero risk that any contestant needs to take while the defender needs to commit and risk everything. Even assuming that the asset involved in contesting (Interceptor) is actually risked here, it looks ridiculous as a fitted interceptor is just a throw away ship, while gains that can be contested in sovereignty take time, a lot of collective effort and ISK to materialize. This is why Fozzie & Co needs to wake up, stop pretending to be sociologists attempting to change human behaviour and propensity to collude and collaborate for mutual gains, and instead, smell the ashes of risk-reward balance they have burned here. Developers need to focus on good sandbox design, not pretending to be spaceship-Marx, spaceship-Engels, spaceship-Arendt or (even though she isn't an accepted sociologist like the names I mentioned) spaceship-Rand. Human nature is what human nature has always been, a rag tag team of game developers such as yourselves are not going to change it in this game by railroading the sandbox principles and any tangible risk-reward balance that was established previously in EVE's design. Now, any EVE player worth their salt and carefully following CCP as a company know very well that they are bleeding out subscribers (therefore, revenue) and even the Phoebe changes that were supposed to stop this bleed out did not end up alleviating it. What I'm saying here is that the development philosophy that seems to be taken up at CCP which hilariously reads out as "we will change human behaviour, we will cause more spaceships to explode over no tangible benefits to be had, and this will create new revenue for us". Now contrary to what you guys might believe, we, the player base that actively play, invest in and influence the world of EVE are not a congregation of stupid sheep, and we will not suddenly start to spend our in-game and real-life resources for meaningless destruction and conflict for no rewards just because a developer like Fozzie and his team decided that he prefers that we should in order to make more money. No. An interceptor will not kite with a T1 module, as it has a limited range if it wants to put the sov module or station into reinforced, so it will need to be a T2 module and at 80m a pop that is a nice drop, in fact 20m on the T1 is not bad. For a possible 80m drop its actually a good target.
Still not said anywhere that an interceptor can fit an Entosis module, so keep harping the TROLLceptor is pretty futile at this point. I think CCP has gotten the point that allowing frigate size ships to fit one is a bad idea. Also, how would a frigate of any type or even a destroyer be able to use the t2 module effectively at max range. I would like to see the ceptor that both can fit a large module, keep up speed AND lock a target from 200km would even be possible.
How can you say that CCP isn't focusing on sandbox? They provide new ways for us to create conflict and engagement, but leave it up to us how to run that conflict. Be it going in with a 1000 man fleet or 1 ship sitting close to station (T1 entosis). Its a new way of doing this and it could work even with people griefing and harassing other players. When I was ganked on Jita undock and lost a few billion it sucked, but I didnt ask CCP to change those mechanics. They are there to provide us the choice and develop our own playstyle. No sucky do this, take that quest., run here and execute your sequence of abilities/powers rinse and repeat.
I for one would love to see CCP grow customer base and be as profitable as possible. In the end that is what will keep the servers running. Reducing need for constant renewing of HW just to handle the massive battles is a huge cost saver. Running that kind of serverfarm costs a whole lot more than renting a virtual server on Amazon.
Edit: Made one sentence provide meaning. |
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:52:43 -
[2295] - Quote
Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote:Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses? I think you'll get bored to alarmclocking to grief euro timers every 2 days.. emm, in 1-2 weeks. :)
You know that Goons have a large around the clock presence, yes ?
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
268
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:53:52 -
[2296] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:Still not said anywhere that an interceptor can fit an Entosis module
But strongly implied by:
'Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.'
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:56:48 -
[2297] - Quote
Arrendis wrote: But strongly implied by:
'Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.'
see
CCP Fozzie wrote: I'll also probably be quickly spinning off a discussion of the module balance surrounding the Entosis Link, since that's an area where I expect we can calm some fears relatively easily. The short version is that we have all the tools of EVE's module design at our disposal to ensure that no specific tactics get out of hand. So if problems show up in discussion and playtesting we're happy to let players try to find a counter and then relatively easily step in if that counter doesn't materialize.
Nothing is set in stone and no, the world is not ending. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:58:14 -
[2298] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:I completely agree with you.. I just hope CCP can see the problem too. Small groups will only ever take and hold sov at the behest of the controlling large coalitions. Nullsec's supposed to be the survival of the fittest, not survival of the smallest.
The only thing we can do is make it so you don't have to band together into 2kv2k fights to take a single system, with the most important ship being ships which can only be built in sov space, and try to limit things like just spamming someone's whole space with capture events, even if it technically is stoppable using a single character yourself. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1571
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:58:32 -
[2299] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Still not said anywhere that an interceptor can fit an Entosis module But strongly implied by: 'Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.'
Well if the idea is to enable occupancy sovereignty, with active, alive, real people living there, they would of course allow the fitting of these modules to spaceships that were able to penetrate gatecamps.
If they did not the entire premis fails. And you would have empty space surrounded by impenetrateable borders.
Hence the interceptor hysteria. Interceptors and frigates are the tool that will deliver Sov2 Removing interceptors as a valid tool removes SOV2
Besides when we move out of reinforcement, then the big guns get committed.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
690
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:59:02 -
[2300] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Dracvlad wrote: An interceptor will not kite with a T1 module, as it has a limited range if it wants to put the sov module or station into reinforced, so it will need to be a T2 module and at 80m a pop that is a nice drop, in fact 20m on the T1 is not bad. For a possible 80m drop its actually a good target.
That assumes you will be able to catch the said interceptor, which will be on the move at extreme velocities and will be able to evade everything that's coming his way by blazing out of the grid at MWD speed. To cite a real world example, back in the 70s and 80s, Soviets tried to intercept SR-71 sorties with surface to air missiles too, but the standard procedure for the SR-71 pilot to evade the missiles was simply to change course and increase velocity. Needless to say, no SR-71s ended up getting downed by Soviets.
First of all its not the real world, we are talking Eve mechanics, such as loot scooping in hisec as one example.
An assumption I am making is that the Entosis module no longer works outside of its range and all progress is lost. so blazing off the grid is good, op success and if he makes a mistake 80m module is tasty. If its a TCU it will be next to a POS, so that will be fun to see, they are quite good at blowing up interceptors.
If you make the interceptor pilot frustrated and unable to annoy you, he gets annoyed and goes somewhere else, that is how Eve is.
I hope all these low sec alliances set up honey pot systems to kill loads of bored 0.0 null bears, will be hilarious.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:59:39 -
[2301] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote:Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses? I think you'll get bored to alarmclocking to grief euro timers every 2 days.. emm, in 1-2 weeks. :) Really? What makes you say that? I just spent a month in Delve in a carrier doing nothing but functioning as a mobile supply depot for 40 other CFC guys living down there and fleeting up 23/7 just to produce timers. And next time we deploy, I'll do it again.
So many people seriously underestimate the insane masochistic lengths we will go to to extract tears from someone, no matter how many times we demonstrate it to them. Confirmation bias is such a terrible human trait.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:59:51 -
[2302] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:Arrendis wrote: But strongly implied by:
'Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.'
see CCP Fozzie wrote: I'll also probably be quickly spinning off a discussion of the module balance surrounding the Entosis Link, since that's an area where I expect we can calm some fears relatively easily. The short version is that we have all the tools of EVE's module design at our disposal to ensure that no specific tactics get out of hand. So if problems show up in discussion and playtesting we're happy to let players try to find a counter and then relatively easily step in if that counter doesn't materialize.
Nothing is set in stone and no, the world is not ending.
Oh, totally, but just saying that because it's never explicitly stated that the module will fit on interceptors means there's reason for someone to think it might... that's disingenuous, don't you think? |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:00:35 -
[2303] - Quote
Arrendis wrote: like I said: fleets active, dropping SBUs and hitting IHUBs, 23 hrs a day, 7 days a week, for a month solid. This will just make our lives easier - no need for all the dps to kill an ihub, only 1 timer instead of 2...
And the thing stopping you from grinding literally everything with stealth bombers right here and now is? Or why don't you go and hellcamp some random NPC null station for a month solid? Don't tell me you can't.
I've got news for you. You can come to a random cafe and steal all the sugar from the sugar bowl. Or **** in it. Or swap it for salt. Or washing powder. Or powdered laxative pills Technically there's nothing stopping you from doing any of that. There's nothing stopping CFC from messing with anyone in any kind of sov system because if push comes to shove you can just get a couple of thousand rifters and crash a node. If tomorrow the majority of active server population decides to grief me for funsies, there's nothing short summary bans that can stop them. The only question is why would they. Besides proving a point. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:00:50 -
[2304] - Quote
Alex Boeing wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Alex Boeing wrote: Since i've started playing EVE in august 2014 every patch was making my game more interesting, but this patch WILL BE THE GREATEST! I'm not joking. Please, release IT! Don't listen for those old players who are crying about it, this is just because of their inertia.
I'm living in nulls, I like claim wars, i like PVP, i dislike that enormous rent empires, those hours spended in atacks of Ihub or station. This will be the greatest patch ever. It will release unlimited opportunities in PVP tactics while defending or atacking a system, using the landscape of constellation, spies, week sides of enemy. I'm looking forward to see it very soon!
This is my first time i came to this Forum, and i came only to say this, because it is very important for me and a lot of new players whom i talked about this patch.
Appreciate your point of view but in this case, it is the older players who have learned over years of sov grinding that this will not work as intended. By using the "landscape of a constellation", you mean warping to nodes in different systems and reinforcing them? Yep that will be awesome, until the cloaky camper watching the nodes for the nearest large group, reports back that you are there. Then it is only a matter of time before your little bands of frontier sov takers are mutilated by the blok neighbours who don't want you there. Or did they just bring a 100 man fleet in to destroy your 20 man gang, just because they could and they got a laugh out of it. It is clear CCP is trying but mini games and sov is just not a good combination. The map of EVE is enormous. I will just find that constelleation where i won't be atacked with fleet of 100+ members, and leave this big fights for those who possible to summon such big fleet) cloacked camps are really no problem. Open your imagination and u will find all answers u need. And yes!! This will work, because of new players, new types of mind. Old players will resist, try to make things going like it was before, but will loose) Yes the sov map is huge and most of it is controlled by large groups who are all aligned by blue status or backroom agreements. I wish you luck finding a constellation that is not within easy reach of one of the large groups. If you do manage to find one, be assured 50 other small groups will also have found it.. The large group can sit back and let the small groups fight for sov, then just move in and boot the winner out again.
As an old player, I am not resisting this change, merely pointing out the flaws with this change. I want to see sov change, I want to be able to go out with a small alliance of 400 or 500 and take and hold sov. I don't see these changes making that possible. The stumbling block is now and always will be the large entities, if they don't want you there or just want to do a bit of greifing and pad killboards, your small group is gone.
Sov timers? How many small groups of 400 or 500 can field a 200 man fleet at the same time every day to defend their piece/s of space?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Gorgof Intake
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
61
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:00:52 -
[2305] - Quote
So this thread has literally broken down into a bunch of Goons, Goon alts and a few unsuspecting crusaders squabbling over different theorycrafting ideas about a feature that has not been detailed and is completely arbitrary. GG guys.
Amazingly, there are actually more interesting discussions to be had than what you pubbies think your leadership is going to do (which btw is not going to be what you all seem to think is going to happen).
Can we get this thread divided into the "CFC circlejerk 3.0 edition" and the rest of us can discuss some issues of actual relevance?
Some Thoughts on Sov Mechanics
DEADPACKS: Alternative Sov Mechanic
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:01:37 -
[2306] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I do of course recognise all the other entities that like having fun, you are not the only ones, but if you come to troll and only find a TCU next to a death star who is trolling who? Will this "deathstar" really make a dent into a speedtanking interceptor? |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
697
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:01:38 -
[2307] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:*Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal.
if you had said ishtars or tengus i might believe it
even then a group that can contest one beacon is going to have trouble contesting the 242 simultaneous timers that the other interceptors are making
75 stations + 2 * 84 systems btw
If the inties spread out, then the defensive fleet can spread out because a single inty isnt a threat.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:01:54 -
[2308] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Still not said anywhere that an interceptor can fit an Entosis module But strongly implied by: 'Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.'
If there is one part of this feedback which should be clear for CCP is that too low fitting requirements will be a bad idea. And cruisers fitting a module would be OK in my book. Cynabals would be a pretty good choice given speed, midslots and extra highslot. It would also make a nice and juicy target that, for instance, an interceptor can tackle. Havent seen too many 100mn AB cynabals, so scram will take care of speed. Probably 1-2 dead ceptors before the cynabal dies, but thats a good trade off imo.
Large groups can do more than small groups, but that will be the case in all scenarious involving sov. Trying to take sov and be completely alone would be utopia and no system would be able to handle that without imposing artificial and sandbox limiting mechanics. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:01:55 -
[2309] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: Well if the idea is to enable occupancy sovereignty, with active, alive, real people living there, they would of course allow the fitting of these modules to spaceships that were able to penetrate gatecamps.
Why? Shouldn't an attacker have to fight through the defenders instead of bypassing them by fiat?
Or are you actually making the contention that unless a single system is guarded 24/7 from interceptors and cov ops frigates, that whoever owns that system is undeserving of it? Because last I checked, this was a game, not a job.
I can't think of a better way to crowd any and all small groups than to force literally constant defense fleets.
"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
270
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:02:14 -
[2310] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:And the thing stopping you from grinding literally everything with stealth bombers right here and now is?
We didn't use bombers, for one. :) |
|
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
578
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:02:23 -
[2311] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:
Nothing is set in stone and no, the world is not ending.
It's not ? So you mean I bought all that canned pineapple for nothing ? Time to get diabetes then ...
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:02:50 -
[2312] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Arrendis wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Still not said anywhere that an interceptor can fit an Entosis module But strongly implied by: 'Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.' Well if the idea is to enable occupancy sovereignty, with active, alive, real people living there, they would of course allow the fitting of these modules to spaceships that were able to penetrate gatecamps. If they did not the entire premis fails. And you would have empty space surrounded by impenetrateable borders. Hence the interceptor hysteria. Interceptors and frigates are the tool that will deliver Sov2
Umm ,you can't fly a fleet capable of taking sov through a gate camp in the current state. Not without bashing through it anyway. You will need a sov lazor in your fleet is all, it just wont be carried by your scout/tackle. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
690
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:04:28 -
[2313] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote: An interceptor will not kite with a T1 module, as it has a limited range if it wants to put the sov module or station into reinforced, so it will need to be a T2 module and at 80m a pop that is a nice drop, in fact 20m on the T1 is not bad. For a possible 80m drop its actually a good target.
Part of the issue I'm having with this is that the T2 module, even if it does turn out to have ridiculous training requirements, is just such a significant step up in terms of functionality from the T1. The T2 is a 120 second cycle time, with a range that is frankly ridiculous. Compared to the 300 second cycle of the T1 module, with a tenth of the range. But the tiny cycle time is a prickly problem. It just leaves very little window open for pre-reinforcement defense. Yeah, once the thing is reinforced, bring the fleet until the 4 hr window is up and the timer goes away. But then they finish the timer, and I just login my cov ops alt to pop it again and they have to come back the following day for four hours. In exchange for a few minutes of my time per day(because, once again, I can just sit in their system on an alt on another monitor until they give me an opening), I cost their defense fleet a guaranteed four hours per day. This isn't cat and mouse. This isn't even conflict. This is pointless repetition. I thought we were going away from weaponizing boredom.
The T2 module gives differing tactical options, that is why its there, its actually pretty smart, the functionality comes at a significant increased cost and I expect a lot of ships will die trying to RF.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:05:35 -
[2314] - Quote
Nami Kumamato wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:
Nothing is set in stone and no, the world is not ending.
It's not ? So you mean I bought all that canned pineapple for nothing ? Time to get diabetes then ...
Sorry hope you bought some canned bacon to go with it |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1571
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:07:12 -
[2315] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Well if the idea is to enable occupancy sovereignty, with active, alive, real people living there, they would of course allow the fitting of these modules to spaceships that were able to penetrate gatecamps.
Why? Shouldn't an attacker have to fight through the defenders instead of bypassing them by fiat? Or are you actually making the contention that unless a single system is guarded 24/7 from interceptors and cov ops frigates, that whoever owns that system is undeserving of it? Because last I checked, this was a game, not a job. I can't think of a better way to crowd any and all small groups than to force literally constant defense fleets.
I will give some serious thought as to why, you are unable to understand that in a system that is designed to ensure local occupancy and defence, why having inpenetrateable gatecamps 20 jumps out that will ensure that no one gets to the target, and removing the tools that can penetrate them, does not work to achieve those goals.
I will give it deep thought, but it may take a while.............
And I fear the answer will be 42
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Papa Digger
OEG The Gorgon Empire
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:07:30 -
[2316] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Papa Digger wrote: Why you think that you will be playing only in offence every day? :)
We have the numbers. Then why I see a half of galaxy not owned by CFC? :) Easy to hit, hard to hold.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
691
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:07:44 -
[2317] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I do of course recognise all the other entities that like having fun, you are not the only ones, but if you come to troll and only find a TCU next to a death star who is trolling who? Will this "deathstar" really make a dent into a speedtanking interceptor?
Well I have seen a fair few interceptors killed by POS guns in my time, but its possible yes.
Ella's Snack bar
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:07:45 -
[2318] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Well if the idea is to enable occupancy sovereignty, with active, alive, real people living there, they would of course allow the fitting of these modules to spaceships that were able to penetrate gatecamps.
single system is guarded 4/7
Fixed that.
And it's not that onerous to chase them off unless they are there in force, but that is not what is being posited. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:08:35 -
[2319] - Quote
Papa Digger wrote:baltec1 wrote:Papa Digger wrote: Why you think that you will be playing only in offence every day? :)
We have the numbers. Then why I see a half of galaxy not owned by CFC? :) Easy to hit, hard to hold.
Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve... |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:09:32 -
[2320] - Quote
Arrendis wrote: We didn't use bombers, for one. :)
But technically you could. For the purpose of griefing you can do SB grinding ops bypassing gatecamps and denying actual fights. With current mechanics a fleet of SBs is as substitude for the idea of a fleet of trollceptors. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15383
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:09:41 -
[2321] - Quote
Papa Digger wrote:baltec1 wrote:Papa Digger wrote: Why you think that you will be playing only in offence every day? :)
We have the numbers. Then why I see a half of galaxy not owned by CFC? :) Easy to hit, hard to hold.
We have no need for even more useless space.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:10:24 -
[2322] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:Arrendis wrote: But strongly implied by:
'Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.'
see CCP Fozzie wrote: I'll also probably be quickly spinning off a discussion of the module balance surrounding the Entosis Link, since that's an area where I expect we can calm some fears relatively easily. The short version is that we have all the tools of EVE's module design at our disposal to ensure that no specific tactics get out of hand. So if problems show up in discussion and playtesting we're happy to let players try to find a counter and then relatively easily step in if that counter doesn't materialize.
Nothing is set in stone and no, the world is not ending. Oh, totally, but just saying that because it's never explicitly stated that the module will fit on interceptors means there's reason for someone to think it might... that's disingenuous, don't you think?
I agree, but it think its more discourteous than disingenuous. He doesn't outright say it but i think it's clear that's what hes hinting at. He should have just put the fears to bed now instead of waiting. A simple "links wont fit on inties" would have been better. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:12:20 -
[2323] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:I agree, but it think its more discourteous than disingenuous. He doesn't outright say it but i think it's clear that's what hes hinting at. He should have just put the fears to bed now instead of waiting. A simple "links wont fit on inties" would have been better.
He probably feels that if he says that, he's ensuring that someone, somehow, will wait until they go in, and then post a 3b isk fitting that requires extensive high-end implants, but manages to fit one. Just to say 'FOZZIE LIED'. |
Blast Radius1
30plus Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:12:33 -
[2324] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:Arrendis wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:Arrendis wrote: But strongly implied by:
'Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.'
see CCP Fozzie wrote: I'll also probably be quickly spinning off a discussion of the module balance surrounding the Entosis Link, since that's an area where I expect we can calm some fears relatively easily. The short version is that we have all the tools of EVE's module design at our disposal to ensure that no specific tactics get out of hand. So if problems show up in discussion and playtesting we're happy to let players try to find a counter and then relatively easily step in if that counter doesn't materialize.
Nothing is set in stone and no, the world is not ending. Oh, totally, but just saying that because it's never explicitly stated that the module will fit on interceptors means there's reason for someone to think it might... that's disingenuous, don't you think? I agree, but it think its more discourteous than disingenuous. He doesn't outright say it but i think it's clear that's what hes hinting at. He should have just put the fears to bed now instead of waiting. A simple "links wont fit on inties" would have been better. Yet, if it was attention they were seeking by not explicitly ruling it out, I would say they have op success, no?
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1805
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:12:34 -
[2325] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Bezdar22 wrote:lemme tell u whats gonna happen...
there will be FW like fights in null sec.. no more big fights.. frig fights every where...
what they dont understand ppl coe top play this game coz they heard of big fights.. thats what make story .. not small fights.
small fights just look cool thats about it..
this game wil become WOW pretty soon.. thats where CCP leading us.
There will still be big fights. But wars will not be a LOT of boredom waiting for failed opportunitie sof such big fights.. and then suddenly end after a single big fight. Wars will be more interestign with several smaller engagements, until someone tries to go for a very important target when Big fight WILL happen. The only difference is that the bigh fight will not be on a single grid, but spread all over the constellation. More tactical depth, more strategical opportunities. THe need of real fleet commanders, not people that just call targets. The need of a hierarchy of command because you will have several ' regiments" in a fleet that must spread Have you ever fought a sov war? You are not going to see small gangs zipping around fightting for the nodes. To be fair, you have never fought one of these sov wars either. Nobody has.
The real irony is that active FW corps are probably the best adapted to this kind of fighting, with good depth in highly competent pilots.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
405
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:14:10 -
[2326] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Papa Django wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: won't take us four hours to RF the entire region, just 30 minutes
Stop with the mittani trollceptor. A single ship with a link is enough to counter your ridiculous wing of trollceptor. We can dump several hundred of them on you for fun. Several thousand if someone kicks the hive.
Is that the official narrative today?
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:15:28 -
[2327] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: The T2 module gives differing tactical options, that is why its there, its actually pretty smart, the functionality comes at a significant increased cost and I expect a lot of ships will die trying to RF.
EDIT: By the way, I do not think that the T2 version is meant for smaller ships, even though it may be used for them, I think that its a module thaht require lock so its limited to the targetting range, at least I hope that is the case.
The tactical options can come from the 1000% buff to range.
The speed buff is simply not necessary. 5 minutes might, in and of itself, be too fast. The only saving grace is that once you activate it, you are stuck on grid for that whole time. Although the question needs to be answered as to whether flying out of range will immediately halt the module (and thus give you back warp ability), or whether the cycle time will still complete but unsuccessfully(thus preventing warp for the entire cycle time).
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Papa Digger
OEG The Gorgon Empire
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:15:50 -
[2328] - Quote
Worrff wrote: You know that Goons have a large around the clock presence, yes ?
I never thought about it.. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:19:57 -
[2329] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: But until people get exhausted form trying fruitlessly, to remove all the tools of the new sov2 it will be hard to move on from that into productive discourse.
No one is doing that, you obtuse fool.
The only thing stopping productive discourse is you and your pathetic attempts to crow over something that is literally still up in the air, as per the developers themselves.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Papa Digger
OEG The Gorgon Empire
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:21:28 -
[2330] - Quote
Arrendis wrote: Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...
What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :) |
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1571
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:21:32 -
[2331] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: I will give some serious thought as to why, you are unable to understand that in a system that is designed to ensure local occupancy and defence, why having inpenetrateable gatecamps 20 jumps out that will ensure that no one gets to the target, and removing the tools that can penetrate them, does not work to achieve those goals.
I'm not sure why you think that guarding the external borders of a contiguous area of sovereignty should be a 100% unviable option. Oh, that's right. Your bias is why you think that. Possibly because that is what we have today, large swathes of renters and unoccupied space. It would take a particular brand of denial, not to understand that, this is contrary to the entire concept of Sov2.
If you still fail to understand this, I could puzzle over why, until the heat death of the universe and still not reach an understanding why.
Unless I consider the obvious.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:21:54 -
[2332] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Logically, they are waiting to see if people actually understand what is being presented here, in depth, rather than feed hysteria. Eventually, people will realise, that the new sovereignty landscape is mobile, to encourage active players in coalitions of many new smaller time zone based alliances, created either from new, or smaller from the current big alliances, to defend their home constellation, and NOT claim ownership, of areas they are neither wishing to live in or defend.
But of course people will resist this, because it is different. There are no doubt ways it can be more effective, and enjoyable. But until people get exhausted form trying fruitlessly, to remove all the tools of the new sov2 it will be hard to move on from that into productive discourse.
Very true, but they could be waiting a long time. This will be a threadnaught the likes of which we have never seen. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:23:31 -
[2333] - Quote
Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote: Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...
What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :) And they lose the ihub and have to ship one in and re-anchor it and spend up to 100 days rebuilding their sov index etc. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:24:04 -
[2334] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: Possibly because that is what we have today, large swathes of renters and unoccupied space. It would take a particular brand of denial, not to understand that, this is contrary to the entire concept of Sov2.
It takes a particular kind of intellectual dishonesty to jump to the wild conclusion that defense is intended to be impossible in this rebalance.
"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
270
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:24:28 -
[2335] - Quote
Papa Digger wrote:What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :)
Burning down ihubs to degrade the money you can make in that space. Freeporting the station so SOLAR can get its crap out from where PL stuffed it. maybe blowing up TCUs so the sov drops for things like SCSAAs and jump bridges.
Or just to annoy people. There's always reasons to grief. ;)
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:24:57 -
[2336] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote: The T2 module gives differing tactical options, that is why its there, its actually pretty smart, the functionality comes at a significant increased cost and I expect a lot of ships will die trying to RF.
EDIT: By the way, I do not think that the T2 version is meant for smaller ships, even though it may be used for them, I think that its a module thaht require lock so its limited to the targetting range, at least I hope that is the case.
The tactical options can come from the 1000% buff to range. The speed buff is simply not necessary. 5 minutes might, in and of itself, be too fast. The only saving grace is that once you activate it, you are stuck on grid for that whole time. Although the question needs to be answered as to whether flying out of range will immediately halt the module (and thus give you back warp ability), or whether the cycle time will still complete but unsuccessfully(thus preventing warp for the entire cycle time).
Its stated that target lock is required for the module to work, so its reasonable to assume that going out of locking range will stop the cycle. It then has to be re-initiated. But given how little detail is provided in the blog its difficult to be definite on this.
Deathstar POS's with a gunner and web/scram will kill an interceptor. The reason not so many die to POS is lock time of modules, but a fast aligning ship on grid is a totally different matter. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15383
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:25:11 -
[2337] - Quote
Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote: Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...
What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :)
We freeport it, destroy their ratting and mining and just make life hell for them.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
691
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:26:50 -
[2338] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote: The T2 module gives differing tactical options, that is why its there, its actually pretty smart, the functionality comes at a significant increased cost and I expect a lot of ships will die trying to RF.
EDIT: By the way, I do not think that the T2 version is meant for smaller ships, even though it may be used for them, I think that its a module thaht require lock so its limited to the targetting range, at least I hope that is the case.
The tactical options can come from the 1000% buff to range. The speed buff is simply not necessary. 5 minutes might, in and of itself, be too fast. The only saving grace is that once you activate it, you are stuck on grid for that whole time. Although the question needs to be answered as to whether flying out of range will immediately halt the module (and thus give you back warp ability), or whether the cycle time will still complete but unsuccessfully(thus preventing warp for the entire cycle time).
I think that speed buff for T2 was linked to marauders in Bastion mode.
I think you should have to stay in the ships locking range, or on grid so flying out of range should halt the module and enable you to warp. But I don't care either way, though it would placate people a bit if they could not warp.
My main question is if the attacks end does the 10 minutes start again? I hope that is the case.
Ella's Snack bar
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1572
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:26:51 -
[2339] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Possibly because that is what we have today, large swathes of renters and unoccupied space. It would take a particular brand of denial, not to understand that, this is contrary to the entire concept of Sov2.
It takes a particular kind of intellectual dishonesty to jump to the wild conclusion that defense is intended to be impossible in this rebalance.
Defence is perfectly feasable if you live in system, however if you wish to hold large unoccupied areas of space, and intend to defend it by helicoptering in support from elsewhere, far from the attack, within your closed borders?
Well then, I guess you are pretty much screwed.
But of course when they come out of reinforcement, then you can use all the tactics you are familiar with. But so can the opposition.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:27:51 -
[2340] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote: Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...
What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :) We freeport it.
I can't help but think that creating a deliberate DMZ of unclaimed systems around space that you actually want to own would be an unintended consequence of how this rebalance is currently planned.
If anyone comes to take it to stage into your actual space, you just harass them with timers until they give up in frustration. It only takes two minutes a day to reinforce anything, after all.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
MIKI ZUKI
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:28:31 -
[2341] - Quote
if after so may years these is the best you could came with, thse capture the flag bs the thse game is doomed , 2 yearsmax till it goes belly up |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:30:17 -
[2342] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Possibly because that is what we have today, large swathes of renters and unoccupied space. It would take a particular brand of denial, not to understand that, this is contrary to the entire concept of Sov2.
It takes a particular kind of intellectual dishonesty to jump to the wild conclusion that defense is intended to be impossible in this rebalance. Defence is perfectly feasable if you live in system, however if you wish to hold large areas of space, and intend to defend it by helicoptering in support from elsewhere, far from the attack, within your closed borders? Well then, I guess you are pretty much screwed.
Actually, I could see Prime Time being set to a rolling window across CFC space, so if you want to get some action in EUTZ, you head to tribute and dek. Early US, head to PBF. Late US, Cloud/Outer Ring, into Fountain, with the remainder of Fountain in AU.
Branch gets RUS TZ. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:31:02 -
[2343] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: I think that speed buff for T2 was linked to marauders in Bastion mode.
I think you should have to stay in the ships locking range, or on grid so flying out of range should halt the module and enable you to warp. But I don't care either way, though it would placate people a bit if they could not warp.
My main question is if the attacks end does the 10 minutes start again? I hope that is the case.
As was mentioned, you need to maintain target lock.
So hopefully just pulling range while aligned doesn't break the warp disrupting effect instantly. Because that would be pretty broken.
As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1807
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:31:21 -
[2344] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:...Most of the space we already have is near useless and provides nothing for the ordinary line member. After this change it will still be useless space only now it will be even easier to disrupt everyone using our massive numbers. CCP seems intent on change and have demonstrated with this blog that they are neither afraid to shake up the status quo or react strongly to player attempts to deliberately bugger up the new system.
Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:33:24 -
[2345] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will. Actually I'm remembering we said the siphons would NOT be the "conflict generators" they're sold as.
Turns out they didn't turn into the conflict generators they were sold as. Imagine that. |
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:34:16 -
[2346] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1
The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1572
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:35:22 -
[2347] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Zappity wrote:Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will. Actually I'm remembering we said the siphons would NOT be the "conflict generators" they're sold as. Turns out they didn't turn into the conflict generators they were sold as. Imagine that.
They may well however rise to greater prominence, with Sov2 particuarly If they gain short cycle time.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1996
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:35:23 -
[2348] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Zappity wrote:Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will. Actually I'm remembering we said the siphons would NOT be the "conflict generators" they're sold as. Turns out they didn't turn into the conflict generators they were sold as. Imagine that.
Considering you made a point about banning them on your treaty with PL means that they were indeed up to level of creating that conflict.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Rex Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:36:10 -
[2349] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote: Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...
What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :) We freeport it. I can't help but think that creating a deliberate DMZ of unclaimed systems around space that you actually want to own would be an unintended consequence of how this rebalance is currently planned. If anyone comes to take it to stage into your actual space, you just harass them with timers until they give up in frustration. It only takes two minutes a day to reinforce anything, after all.
Offence is the best defence. You dont go sit around station to wait for the trollceptor. You activly troll all surrounding coalitions during primetime. Keep them busy on their hometurf. |
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:36:32 -
[2350] - Quote
Too often read here about unoccupied space.
To clarify: The systems that are actually empty are not worth anything which is the reason why they are, were and will be empty.
If the new sov system goes live even the slighly better system that are just good for 3 corpmembers will be empty aswell because there is absolutely no way to be online for 4h each day with 3 members and defend against a 20 fleet.
A system with -0.8 for example is just good for 10 simultanous operating corpmembers.
|
|
Papa Digger
OEG The Gorgon Empire
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:36:55 -
[2351] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote: Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...
What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :) We freeport it, destroy their ratting and mining and just make life hell for them. I know what it mean for PL renters etc. But how it helps for fighting against small alliances who don't build ihubs, and just wait for your leaving and take this space back? :)
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
692
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:37:46 -
[2352] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I think that speed buff for T2 was linked to marauders in Bastion mode.
I think you should have to stay in the ships locking range, or on grid so flying out of range should halt the module and enable you to warp. But I don't care either way, though it would placate people a bit if they could not warp.
My main question is if the attacks end does the 10 minutes start again? I hope that is the case.
As was mentioned, you need to maintain target lock. So hopefully just pulling range while aligned doesn't break the warp disrupting effect instantly. Because that would be pretty broken. As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
I came to the same conclusion about target lock.
I would agree with you on keeping the warp disruption while the module is running, that would be better, so agree.
I would prefer it going back to 0, but a timer going back to zero over time would work too.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:38:21 -
[2353] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Zappity wrote:Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will. Actually I'm remembering we said the siphons would NOT be the "conflict generators" they're sold as. Turns out they didn't turn into the conflict generators they were sold as. Imagine that. Considering you made a point about banning them on your treaty with PL means that they were indeed up to level of creating that conflict. Oh, I'm sure that was put into the agreement more to keep us from doing that to them, than vice versa. But that agreement's no longer in place, and how much is it used to "generate conflict" now, a year(?) after that agreement was voided? |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:38:46 -
[2354] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote: Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...
What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :) We freeport it.
Nulldeal did ask for more npc space. If ccp wont oblige why not have players provide the service. No missions but then again running missions is the slow death of small red crosses.
Also CCP, with this account started in 2009 how can you limit how often I can post. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5910
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:40:25 -
[2355] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:I'm going to say I'm somewhat disappointed, but I shall return to comment after I go throw up.
Not that it particularly matters after looking at your meager post history involving a whinge about mining nerfs and the ISBoxer nerf, but I notice you never did come back to comment after your dramatic "first" post.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:41:41 -
[2356] - Quote
Just some idle thoughts from a bored and idle mind..
Maybe there is way to limit the ability of large bloks to simply roll over whom ever they choose. Everything to do with sov, taking, losing, reinforcing, or anything else to do with sov all comes down to fleet composition. Simply make it so that the largest single entity is the one who gains benefit from any single engagement.
The bloks work by utilizing allies to cover areas they can't, defend space when they can't (or don't want to). So remove that ability to an extent by adding penalties.
If alliance A wants to take sov they need to do the work to take it, nodes will be on timers. The timers are increased for every member of the offensive fleet who is not a member of the alliance seeking to take the system or constellation. The 1st alliance to shoot the node becomes the dominant alliance (they are vying for sov) for every fleet member who is not in that alliance 10 mins is added to the timers for the capture or reinforce or whatever. You come with a mixed 100 man fleet from different alliances (a coalition), you can still take sov, it is just going to take you a hell of a lot longer to do it
Remove selective sov - Alliance B can't go out and do most of the work then let alliance A finish it to claim sov. If a new group comes to attack nodes or Ihub or whatever once they have been reinforced, the timers reset as if they were the 1st to attack it. Remove "sov transfers" - You want sov, you fight for it ,not pay the landlord to let you put an ihub up
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:45:11 -
[2357] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: I came to the same conclusion about target lock.
I would agree with you on keeping the warp disruption while the module is running, that would be better, so agree.
I would prefer it going back to 0, but a timer going back to zero over time would work too.
The worst of the three options, in my opinion, is that the timer does not change, and the defender has to grind it back down himself. This prevents the defender from simply killing the aggressors and going about their business, which is sub optimal in my opinion and just adds more chores.
I strongly suspect that it will reset entirely, since from the flowchart they offered us it seems as though reinforcement and such is contingent on completing cycles of the Entosis links.
The only hazy point is where it states that success activates the structure, but I believe that to be referring to active denial, such as someone turning a TCU on, for instance.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:47:06 -
[2358] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1 The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics. Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links.
This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30766
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:47:43 -
[2359] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Javajunky wrote:I'm going to say I'm somewhat disappointed, but I shall return to comment after I go throw up. Not that it particularly matters after looking at your meager post history involving a whinge about mining nerfs and the ISBoxer nerf, but I notice you never did come back to comment after your dramatic "first" post. Whether this is intentional or not it's funny either way.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:48:02 -
[2360] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1 The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics. Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links. This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things.
Except that they did defend their own things. By killing the guy who tried to contest it.
Once the active influence of the attacker is gone, so should the effects be gone.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:49:07 -
[2361] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1 The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics. Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links. This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things. Except that they did defend their own things. By killing the guy who tried to contest it. Once the active influence of the attacker is gone, so should the effects be gone.
Or they batphoned the landlord - something they're trying to discourage. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1808
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:49:58 -
[2362] - Quote
The warp disruption needs to stay on regardless of whether you lose targeting, should stop cloaking and should not be able to be deactivated by overheating. It would be tragic if null was inflicted with anything like FW stabbed and cloaky farmers.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:50:57 -
[2363] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1 The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics. Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links. This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things.
True enough i didn't think of 3rd party in that situation. But it would obviously still be much more effective to apply your own links. Also i made a second edit to that post that moderately alleviates that concern. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:51:22 -
[2364] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Or they batphoned the landlord - something they're trying to discourage.
In two minutes? I doubt that very much.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:51:45 -
[2365] - Quote
I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30766
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:51:55 -
[2366] - Quote
Zappity wrote:The warp disruption needs to stay on regardless of whether you lose targeting, should stop cloaking and should not be able to be deactivated by overheating. It would be tragic if null was inflicted with anything like FW stabbed and cloaky farmers. No it wouldn't. FW would finally get their ships with bonuses to core stabs
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:53:50 -
[2367] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1 The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics. Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links. This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things. Except that they did defend their own things. By killing the guy who tried to contest it. Once the active influence of the attacker is gone, so should the effects be gone. Or they batphoned the landlord - something they're trying to discourage. Regardless of how it happened, someone came and defended the space. It's obviously space which is still defendable, or it wouldn't have been defended. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
692
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:55:52 -
[2368] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I came to the same conclusion about target lock.
I would agree with you on keeping the warp disruption while the module is running, that would be better, so agree.
I would prefer it going back to 0, but a timer going back to zero over time would work too.
The worst of the three options, in my opinion, is that the timer does not change, and the defender has to grind it back down himself. This prevents the defender from simply killing the aggressors and going about their business, which is sub optimal in my opinion and just adds more chores. I strongly suspect that it will reset entirely, since from the flowchart they offered us it seems as though reinforcement and such is contingent on completing cycles of the Entosis links. The only hazy point is where it states that success activates the structure, but I believe that to be referring to active denial, such as someone turning a TCU on, for instance.
I agree the timer not changing would be the worst option, I would prefer a full re-set but the tick back works too. It would be a pain to make them grind it back to zero as a chore, but in a way that would be a good thing as the defender has to be vulnerable too, though not within a POS shield I hope.
I noticed one box in the flow chart stating that the capture progress is paused if no Entosis links are active, so my base assumption is leaning towards having to use an Entosis link to set it back to 0 so taht would mean the defender setting it back to 0 by doing a win cycle.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:58:16 -
[2369] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw.
Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead.
That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:58:25 -
[2370] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Regardless of how it happened, someone came and defended the space. It's obviously space which is still defendable, or it wouldn't be defended.
Yes but the point I'm making is this is the ENTIRE reason behind the division of "sides" in the links. To FORCE the OWNERS to take action, to be unable to rely on "blues" for the whole thing.
It also opens interesting tactical possibilities insofar as the attackers can primary a single alliance to try and get a timer to extend by breaking the links. |
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
692
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:59:29 -
[2371] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I noticed one box in the flow chart stating that the capture progress is paused if no Entosis links are active, so my base assumption is leaning towards having to use an Entosis link to set it back to 0 so taht would mean the defender setting it back to 0 by doing a win cycle.
I am almost positive that is to un-reinforce a structure.
I hope so, but it defines capture progress which includes setting it to reinforced so could be both.
EDIT: As others have pointed out it forces people to do this as the act of defending their space so I think you would have to do a full defence cycle to remove it, well I could live with that.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1997
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:59:30 -
[2372] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:As far as time zone mechanics I think a binary window is contrary to the spirit of eve, as many have voiced. Eve is a place where you can get your **** handed to you 23/7 and I don't ever want that to change. If my enemy wants to alarm clock all 1,000 members of their alliance to catch me at my weakest time, more power to em, that's the stuff that makes eve great.
That said, with how it easy it seems to be to reinforce a structure, I do think it should be more difficult (read not impossible) to do so outside of the set prime time. Off the top off i my head i can think of a few options to (potentially) improve on the system.
1) Alliance chooses a Prime Time as in the suggested model but outside of the time zone is a flat multiplier that increases capture time instead of disabling it completely.
2) Alliance chooses a Prime Time. The further away from that time you are the longer it takes to capture.
One issue with this is that fighting after the Prime Time would be fighting an uphill battle as capture time increases. The opposite would be true in the hours leading up to it.
This is a good idea on my eyes. Binarization seldom is a good solution. Just make that in prime time things are as fast as planned and in opposite side of the day it is something like 8-10 times longer.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:00:37 -
[2373] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote:I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw. Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead. That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed.
You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?
This is the case even today.
CCP is quite clear that they are forcing OWNERS to be on field and taking action or they are losing their things.
Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things? |
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
34
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:01:14 -
[2374] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:Too often read here about unoccupied space.
To clarify: The systems that are actually empty are not worth anything which is the reason why they are, were and will be empty.
If the new sov system goes live even the slighly better system that are just good for 3 corpmembers will be empty aswell because there is absolutely no way to be online for 4h each day with 3 members and defend against a 20 fleet.
A system with -0.8 for example is just good for 10 simultanous operating corpmembers.
Don't you rent quite a lot of these useless regions for many billions? |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
204
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:02:27 -
[2375] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Regardless of how it happened, someone came and defended the space. It's obviously space which is still defendable, or it wouldn't be defended. Yes but the point I'm making is this is the ENTIRE reason behind the division of "sides" in the links. To FORCE the OWNERS to take action, to be unable to rely on "blues" for the whole thing. Well, they did, didn't they? They thwarted the reinforcement attempt, and either they someone from their alliance . What's the problem?
I'm guessing what you're going to end up with is instead of "blues", you'll have corps joining an alliance, just like today.
afkalt wrote:It also opens interesting tactical possibilities insofar as the attackers can primary a single alliance to try and get a timer to extend by breaking the links. I've no idea what you're trying to get at, since at worst there'll be a specific alliance which all the corps are in, so no matter what you do, you've got "a single alliance". |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
204
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:03:42 -
[2376] - Quote
afkalt wrote:You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested? You mean like POSes are completely incapable of regenerating their own shield after they've been reinforced? |
GsyBoy
Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:03:43 -
[2377] - Quote
Solution - Only the rorqual can fit the new mod and window of 10 hours.
Agression needs to be readded to bubbles if free port a go.
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:04:35 -
[2378] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote:I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw. Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead. That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed. You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested? This is the case even today. CCP is quite clear that they are forcing OWNERS to be on field and taking action or they are losing their things. Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things?
Alphaing links of the field is an imperfect solution by itself. There will always be more links from both sides. Its still a losing battle to try and defend a timer without the owner present. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:05:44 -
[2379] - Quote
afkalt wrote: You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?
No, not like that at all, or to put it a different way, exactly like that. Because if I only knock a chunk off the shields of a contemporary structure but fail to actually reinforce it, it replenishes itself on it's own and my work is undone.
Quote: Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things?
They are. They killed the guy doing it before he could finish.
Why should the attacker be allowed to have his influence linger after he's already dead?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
791
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:05:57 -
[2380] - Quote
I suspect this thread has ceased its usefulness now, all the significant points have been raised; until we get the "issue" devblogs, going back and forth is kinda pointless. The thread has pretty-much devolved to highseccers who will never take advantage of the changes crowing about "the fall of the blocks", big blockmembers either, depending on your viewpoint, giving the benefit of their experience and explaining how they'll break this system, or "crying", and wormhole and NPC-nullsec small gangers looking forward to giving a black eye or two over old bitter grudges.
Commence the next 100 pages without a new viewpoint being expressed |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:06:02 -
[2381] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:afkalt wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Regardless of how it happened, someone came and defended the space. It's obviously space which is still defendable, or it wouldn't be defended. Yes but the point I'm making is this is the ENTIRE reason behind the division of "sides" in the links. To FORCE the OWNERS to take action, to be unable to rely on "blues" for the whole thing. Well, they did, didn't they? They thwarted the reinforcement attempt, and either they someone from their alliance . What's the problem? I'm guessing what you're going to end up with is instead of "blues", you'll have corps joining an alliance, just like today. afkalt wrote:It also opens interesting tactical possibilities insofar as the attackers can primary a single alliance to try and get a timer to extend by breaking the links. I've no idea what you're trying to get at, since at worst there'll be a specific alliance which all the corps are in, so no matter what you do, you've got "a single alliance".
I think we're talking at cross contexts.
What makes the most sense is to apply the occupancy bonuses in reverse to the owners in terms of times. So for the owners, DIVIDE the 10 minute capture time by the occupancy bonus factor. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:06:50 -
[2382] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:afkalt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote:I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw. Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead. That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed. You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested? This is the case even today. CCP is quite clear that they are forcing OWNERS to be on field and taking action or they are losing their things. Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things? Alphaing links of the field is an imperfect solution by itself. There will always be more links from both sides. Its still a losing battle to try and defend a timer without the owner present.
As it is presented today, yes. People are asking for the thing to tick back itself after attackers die, thus directly going against the NEED to have the owners on field. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30766
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:06:56 -
[2383] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:I suspect this thread has ceased its usefulness now, all the significant points have been raised; until we get the "issue" devblogs, going back and forth is kinda pointless. The thread has pretty-much devolved to highseccers who will never take advantage of the changes crowing about "the fall of the blocks", big blockmembers either, depending on your viewpoint, giving the benefit of their experience and explaining how they'll break this system, or "crying", and wormhole and NPC-nullsec small gangers looking forward to giving a black eye or two over old bitter grudges. Commence the next 100 pages without a new viewpoint being expressed Nonsense, we haven't even started on how bad the name is
Help, I can't download EVE
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:08:28 -
[2384] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:Too often read here about unoccupied space.
To clarify: The systems that are actually empty are not worth anything which is the reason why they are, were and will be empty.
If the new sov system goes live even the slighly better system that are just good for 3 corpmembers will be empty aswell because there is absolutely no way to be online for 4h each day with 3 members and defend against a 20 fleet.
A system with -0.8 for example is just good for 10 simultanous operating corpmembers.
Don't you rent quite a lot of these useless regions for many billions?
No we dont and does not change that they are useless. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:09:03 -
[2385] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:afkalt wrote:You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested? You mean like POSes are completely incapable of regenerating their own shield after they've been reinforced?
I was referring to both the new and the old worlds.
If you RF under this proposition, the defenders MUST take action or it stays RFd.
>>If nobody shows up to defend or attack a capture event, or if the involved parties are perfectly matched, the event can go on indefinitely |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:12:23 -
[2386] - Quote
afkalt wrote: As it is presented today, yes. People are asking for the thing to tick back itself after attackers die, thus directly going against the NEED to have the owners on field.
Wrong.
People are asking for the thing to tick back, or completely reset, after the attacker FAILS to complete a cycle.
If you don't complete a cycle, you should get the Willy Wonka. "You get nothing!".
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:13:39 -
[2387] - Quote
Whats wrong with applying occupancy bonuses like I suggested then.
A quarter of the time is hardly onerous. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1572
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:13:46 -
[2388] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:lilol' me wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:Too often read here about unoccupied space.
To clarify: The systems that are actually empty are not worth anything which is the reason why they are, were and will be empty.
If the new sov system goes live even the slighly better system that are just good for 3 corpmembers will be empty aswell because there is absolutely no way to be online for 4h each day with 3 members and defend against a 20 fleet.
A system with -0.8 for example is just good for 10 simultanous operating corpmembers.
Don't you rent quite a lot of these useless regions for many billions? No we dont and does not change that they are useless.
This may very well be true, but can someone PLEASE provide accurate independent and most importantly public data to show exactly how good or bad this is.
For wormhole space Corbexx, our CSM spent days running sites in all classes of WH space to give accurate data that enabled CCP to rebalance lower class holes.
If you do the same, you hopefully will benefit from similar results.
Good active space is good for EVERYONE. But someone has to step up and start the work. And EVE being EVE, without that hard data, everyone will assume you are rolling naked in isk and just wanting more. And it really seems like that is not the case.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
692
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:14:25 -
[2389] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:I suspect this thread has ceased its usefulness now, all the significant points have been raised; until we get the "issue" devblogs, going back and forth is kinda pointless. The thread has pretty-much devolved to highseccers who will never take advantage of the changes crowing about "the fall of the blocks", big blockmembers either, depending on your viewpoint, giving the benefit of their experience and explaining how they'll break this system, or "crying", and wormhole and NPC-nullsec small gangers looking forward to giving a black eye or two over old bitter grudges. Commence the next 100 pages without a new viewpoint being expressed
Thats a troll and reported as such
Ella's Snack bar
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:14:31 -
[2390] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:afkalt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote:I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw. Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead. That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed. You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested? This is the case even today. CCP is quite clear that they are forcing OWNERS to be on field and taking action or they are losing their things. Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things? Alphaing links of the field is an imperfect solution by itself. There will always be more links from both sides. Its still a losing battle to try and defend a timer without the owner present. As it is presented today, yes. People are asking for the thing to tick back itself after attackers die, thus directly going against the NEED to have the owners on field. How did the attacker die if there were no defenders (owners) on field? Attacker dies - timer resets, otherwise you could simply keep sending in 1 attacker at a time, let them die and still capture. If a person had enough ships in a nearby system he could capture alone.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:14:44 -
[2391] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:afkalt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote:I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw. Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead. That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed. You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested? This is the case even today. CCP is quite clear that they are forcing OWNERS to be on field and taking action or they are losing their things. Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things? Alphaing links of the field is an imperfect solution by itself. There will always be more links from both sides. Its still a losing battle to try and defend a timer without the owner present. As it is presented today, yes. People are asking for the thing to tick back itself after attackers die, thus directly going against the NEED to have the owners on field.
What im saying is, if you are presented with a batphone defense and no owners there's only so many alpha fleets they can field. Bring links in something that fleet cant hit and all of the sudden they're useless.
Also I proposed an exponential regen with a delay. Say for example they volley off all the links. It could take 5 minutes to even start regen and another 20 for it to be a meaningful amount of regen. All you need to do is barely start one cycle to reset that. Meanwhile that alpha fleet is hanging out in the open waiting for another group to roam on in and kill them. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:15:59 -
[2392] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: This may very well be true, but can someone PLEASE provide accurate independent and most importantly public data to show exactly how good or bad this is.
It's been a matter of public record on these forums for some time. It's been shown to you on no less than two occasions that I am aware of.
If you choose to ignore them, that's your problem.
The fact of the matter is that most truesec is worth less than slowboating highsec missions.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:17:49 -
[2393] - Quote
After reading the dev blog three times and reading the forum posts for the first 100 pages, here are my inputs. Before the inputs I'll throw in some facts, why my words should have any effect at all. - I have been playing the 0.0 game for pretty much my entire eve life as the small guy - I have been grinding and defending dominion sov for several times in several entities (yes, also with 30 odd drakes)
The primetime While this changes a little to nothing, compared to the present system, I still feel that it should be tweaked to individual structure basis. Gives bigger window to human error. Human error drives conflicts (b-r, Asakai etc). Conflicts are good.
The sov itself We get way too little reasons to own sov. I haveto admit I have no answers to what those reasons could be, but as it is and as it will be, pretty much only reason to own sov is for epeen. The saved fuel costs are pretty irrelevant. Granted that it makes some reactions and low end moon minerals worth to do, but in bigger picture it has no place in planning of "should we get sov?". Also loosing sov doesn't mean anything at all. We EvE players are used to the fact, that we put assets in risk. We need the destroyable stations. If you, Deat CCP, cannot figure out a way to deal with the "dead" assets on a station to be destroyed, then just create a wreck with the same rules a ship does. This would propably generate so much content just beacause ppl want to kill stations to get their hands on the assets.
The occupancy of the system We have had the military, strategic and industry occupancy in the dominion sov. Everyone with sov knows, that the industry is next to impossible to get and to keep at lvl 5. Need to fix that, so that market pvp, manufacturing, moon mining and researching are involved in the industry meter. However there is a bigger concern I have on this occupancy. As presented the occupancy is purely based on amount of PvE in the system. Propably about 90% of all 0.0 systems are unable to provide solid enough PvE activities for the upgrading to kick in. PvP HAVETO be involved to military index. Any entry system for example, are strategically super important systems that cannot support PvE at all, but there is a lot of PvP happening. Even worse I think is the fundamental flaw in the design, that PvE is the key in here and PvP has zero to no effect at all. What I would like to see on the occupancy is, that any kind of activity and actual living in the system will be able to lift the system defences to maximum. There are hundreds of alliances and corporations who have no desire to PvE, but would love to PvP in their own sov space. Now alliances like mine are practically forced to mine to keep systems. I kind of like the fact, that this could encourage ppl to do alliances that does lilbit of everything, not just focused on pure pvp or pure pve. However we have seen it many a times, that pilots in this game are mainly focused on one over the other. PvP'ers like myself dislike PvE, beacause its boring. PvE'rs dislike the PvP, beacause the risk. Yes, I know generification. Also staging systems are rarely used to anything, but lots of ppl in local + market and contracts. There are no ratting, no mining. Yet the staging systems are one of the most important systems to any alliances.
Reinforce times One of the biggest problems in both dominion sov and the presented sov 3.0 I see is, that there is absolutely no penalties whatsoever to get your system reinforced for the first time. In dominion there is no penalty to get it reinforced for second time either. Maybe revert back to SBU's but make it so, that when SBU's are online, you loose all system upgrades, until the fortification is taken down. That would stop defencive SBU's. it would give a significant penalty to getting your system reinforced and thus it would force the defenders to actually defend. Loosing jump bridges, CSAA's, cynogens etc. would actually hurt. This would also give a reason to have 24/7 alliances timezonewise. Ofc the SBU mechanics would need to be tweaked to stop troll SBU's to be dropped everywhere.
Capitals and Supercapitals The new system will invalidate quite a lot of capital and supercapital usage. That is a problem again. Mainly beacause every time a capital / supercapital is used, it has the possibility of generating content. Content is good. If you look back to killed supercapitals/capitals we can divide the deaths to three general cathegories (in k-space, not WH space): - Moving a supercapital gone wrong (and yeah, I used to have a rag) - Supercapitals are bashing structures with low / none support - Dreads/carriers reinforcing structures or repairing structures/ships. The new sov idea will take away quite a lot of those. So we would need a new reason to field those ships. Not that I would love supercapitals gamebalancywise, but the more they are used, the more they keep exploding. Explosions are good mmm'kay.
The change as whole I like it way more than the dominion sov. Command nodes and freeporting is a awesome idea. I like the fact, that a non used system is super easy to take. Even the usage is based on flawed meters, but anyways. But with the all proposed changes at their stage I feel like Sov is more of a burden than anything else. I feel that this will create a environement, where sov may indeed change lot of hands, but just "beacause we can". Noone, but megacoalitions can afford to actually live in a sovspace, beacause the risk is too big to loose everything during your eastern holidays/xmas etc. I like the Entosis link gameplay. Even it is the same grinding that it has always been but without killmails, it still is way easier to do.
I like the way you are headed CCP. Tweak stuff and it will end up being the best thing that ever happened to EvE. So make Sov actually beneficial, wantable and useful to have.
Ugly Eric has spoken o7 |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
698
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:22:34 -
[2394] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Specia1 K wrote:I support these changes +1.
Change is good... Change often is. Change just for the sake of change... rarely is.
Are you insinuating that these changes are entirely unnecessary? In which case what game are you playing?
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1572
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:23:24 -
[2395] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: This may very well be true, but can someone PLEASE provide accurate independent and most importantly public data to show exactly how good or bad this is.
It's been a matter of public record on these forums for some time. It's been shown to you on no less than two occasions that I am aware of. If you choose to ignore them, that's your problem. The fact of the matter is that most truesec is worth less than slowboating highsec missions. I have seen claims masquerading as data, saying HIsec is worth fortunes, and Null is bad.
That hardly counts as data, I am talking about anomoly regen, isk available in anomolies for loot and salvage, (which we know has dropped) and bounties, officer and faction drops, and escalations over for a period of a week or two. For each class of truesec.
This is data, what I have seen so far is give me more statements 'cause incursions are OP. You cannot expect CCP to work with this. Or the wider playerbase to support and campaign for the request
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:25:01 -
[2396] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: That hardly counts as data, I am talking about anomoly regen, isk available in anomolies for loot and salvage, (which we know has dropped) and bounties, officer and faction drops, and escalations over for a period of a week or two.
Please tell me that you aren't actually this ignorant.
http://eve-survival.org/wikka.php?wakka=HomePage
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
819
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:25:07 -
[2397] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:What im saying is, if you are presented with a batphone defense and no owners there's only so many alpha fleets they can field. Bring links in something that fleet cant hit and all of the sudden they're useless.
Also I proposed an exponential regen with a delay. Say for example they volley off all the links. It could take 5 minutes to even start regen and another 20 for it to be a meaningful amount of regen. All you need to do is barely start one cycle to reset that. Meanwhile that alpha fleet is hanging out in the open waiting for another group to roam on in and kill them.
I still don't see an issue.
As it is currently presented, at WORST the defenders spend 9.9 minutes rolling it back. If we reverse occupancy multipliers to assist that, it is 2.5 minutes - 150 seconds to secure the objective. That's not a huge effort wall.
|
Slaver73
Hedion University Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:25:56 -
[2398] - Quote
Spawning defense timers because just because of a single person
for a POS it is currently:
- you want to reinforce it alone? Go grab your dread and stay ~60min on the POS and risk your ship - you and your corporation want to reinforce a POS? Go grab multiple dreads and stay ~5min
and that should be for the Entosis link too
- you want to reinforce the system alone? Do it and stay on the TCU/I-hub/station for 1hour - you want to reinforce the system with you corporation? Do it and put multiple links on it and stay for 15min
for example 10ppl could reinforce it in 15min but 1 person alone had to stay min. 1h (for sure there should be a cap that like 15ppl reach the max. timer bonus - so that there is no difference between 15ppl putting the link on or 200ppl putting the link on) |
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1432
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:27:26 -
[2399] - Quote
This is just the hacking minigame. In space. |
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:28:02 -
[2400] - Quote
So after a few days of this... I'm just disappointed and my motivation and hopes for this game are like the new wormholes... shattered.
Maybe I was expecting too much, some sort of miracle to get away from the blobs and grinds. But this system isn't it, the grind will just be in a different kind of way but still as time consuming as it was before, now it's not about HP but time spent hitting certain structures in a trololol ceptor. You always claim you want people to play as a team, making Eve something to experience with your friends and members, but how is this system doing this? You can just go RF everything in a frig or cruiser, on your own? But then the prime time thing kicks in? You RF a constellation and then you have to clear 100+ nodes? How is this going to be faster than sitting on a stupid SBU or TCU? This won't change the current layout of 0.0 - sure, the major empires are going to lose space they don't need, but it's still a numbers game. This will hurt N3 and PL even more than any other entity - don't get me wrong, I've never been a fan of them and their "elite" attitude, but this will just crush them. CFC is going to have a fun time annoying the **** out of n3 with marauding squadrons until they just stop playing the game. Well done CCP, so much is going to change...not.
Why couldn't you just come up with a system that promotes smaller entities that fight local wars, that encourages to deploy your capitals and supercapitals in a fight over a constellation - something that makes people put assets on the line, not dumb down the fight to even more ceptor ****. Sorry but you're not "reanimating" 0.0 with these changes, it's not supposed to be another big FW zone. There's a reason why each security area has its own meta and lure. I've supported you on Phoebe because I thought it was a step in the right direction or at least a necessary step to implement a totally new system, which makes it possible to soften fatigue afterwards again. But you're just crippling the long term motivation for a lot of people.
I do own a supercarrier but I don't have much love for it right now, after these changes it's even more just a symbol of luxury. Yes, call these tears or whatever - but these are no "omg losing space or whatever" tears, but this is the wrong direction we're heading to. I love Eve because of the diversity of depth of the ship tiers, the different things you can do and find your own niche. But you're killing off niches and diversity, you're dumbing down the game to frigs and cruisers online for the sake of new players but losing your long term paying members on the way.
I love to fly AFs, but I also love my recons, my battleships and my dread. I can't fly my battleships because a few nerds in bombers make them go pop, I can't fly my dread because there'll be no reason to. I can't move it to where the action is happening and even if I could, there's no action to be had after these changes. You think tweaking a few percents of damage on the Ishtar is the solution for its OPness, disregarding or not even answering to hundreds of useful comments by people who face them every day. This sucks and unfortunately I think you give a rat's ass about what we think or what the CSM says, I'm not even sure we're playing the same game here sometimes.
You've been on a good road, don't ruin it. |
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1572
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:29:25 -
[2401] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: That hardly counts as data, I am talking about anomoly regen, isk available in anomolies for loot and salvage, (which we know has dropped) and bounties, officer and faction drops, and escalations over for a period of a week or two.
Please tell me that you aren't actually this ignorant. http://eve-survival.org/wikka.php?wakka=HomePage
You really are playing the fool aren't you
That is like pointing to the first page of the financial times and claiming that everything you need to justify quantative easing is explained there.
Data! Hard data, Not individual sites, how many, regeneration, drops, times, real times, not "guessed". Over a period of days or weeks. You know actual real income over a period, not a meaningless snapshot.
Too lazy? Well not everyone was, and we gained the benefits. Maybe a lesson there.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
405
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:31:14 -
[2402] - Quote
I have removed a troll/rant post, and those quoting it.
Quote:3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. Please stay on topic and be constructive if you're going to partake in the discussion.
ISD Decoy
Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30766
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:31:47 -
[2403] - Quote
Just one?
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:31:53 -
[2404] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:What im saying is, if you are presented with a batphone defense and no owners there's only so many alpha fleets they can field. Bring links in something that fleet cant hit and all of the sudden they're useless.
Also I proposed an exponential regen with a delay. Say for example they volley off all the links. It could take 5 minutes to even start regen and another 20 for it to be a meaningful amount of regen. All you need to do is barely start one cycle to reset that. Meanwhile that alpha fleet is hanging out in the open waiting for another group to roam on in and kill them. I still don't see an issue. As it is currently presented, at WORST the defenders spend 9.9 minutes rolling it back. If we reverse occupancy multipliers to assist that, it is 2.5 minutes - 150 seconds to secure the objective. That's not a huge effort wall.
Its helpful for owners as well. It will allow defenders to pursue an enemy when they leave a structure to go attack another one of the owners structures, which i imagine will not be uncommon. But I will cede that there are much larger issues than this plaguing the sov plans. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:33:26 -
[2405] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: You really are playing the fool aren't you
Don't talk to yourself.
Quote: Data! Hard data, Not individual sites, how many, regeneration, drops, times, real times, not "guessed". Over a period of days or weeks.
Those all already exist. Just put the tiny bit of effort into looking at it for yourself, so you aren't here spouting ignorance at everyone else.
I honestly cannot believe the level of your commitment to ignorance.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:35:26 -
[2406] - Quote
Slaver73 wrote:Spawning defense timers because just because of a single person
for a POS it is currently:
- you want to reinforce it alone? Go grab your dread and stay ~60min on the POS and risk your ship - you and your corporation want to reinforce a POS? Go grab multiple dreads and stay ~5min
and that should be for the Entosis link too
- you want to reinforce the system alone? Do it and stay on the TCU/I-hub/station for 1hour - you want to reinforce the system with you corporation? Do it and put multiple links on it and stay for 15min
for example 10ppl could reinforce it in 15min but 1 person alone had to stay min. 1h (for sure there should be a cap that like 15ppl reach the max. timer bonus - so that there is no difference between 15ppl putting the link on or 200ppl putting the link on)
Still that means that a fleet of 15 people cant defend a station from a fleet of 30 people without fitting a link on every ship. 1 link at a time is the only way this system works. Any more than that and it fails its entire premise. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
819
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:35:27 -
[2407] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:What im saying is, if you are presented with a batphone defense and no owners there's only so many alpha fleets they can field. Bring links in something that fleet cant hit and all of the sudden they're useless.
Also I proposed an exponential regen with a delay. Say for example they volley off all the links. It could take 5 minutes to even start regen and another 20 for it to be a meaningful amount of regen. All you need to do is barely start one cycle to reset that. Meanwhile that alpha fleet is hanging out in the open waiting for another group to roam on in and kill them. I still don't see an issue. As it is currently presented, at WORST the defenders spend 9.9 minutes rolling it back. If we reverse occupancy multipliers to assist that, it is 2.5 minutes - 150 seconds to secure the objective. That's not a huge effort wall. Its helpful for owners as well. It will allow defenders to pursue an enemy when they leave a structure to go attack another one of the owners structures, which i imagine will not be uncommon. But I will cede that there are much larger issues than this plaguing the sov plans.
Indeed. I do think the occupancy should work as I suggested though.
Yes it's a double bonus to owners who use their space - but that's a carrot, not a stick. Needing to link it for 40 minutes on offence, but 2.5 in defence is a pretty big hurdle to get passed and a good reward for well used space. |
bonkerss
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:36:54 -
[2408] - Quote
being in a non sov holding alliance im really looking forward to those changes. it opens up a lot of possibilities to cause havoc and grief and probably generates a lot of small scale content! |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1573
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:41:05 -
[2409] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: You really are playing the fool aren't you
Don't talk to yourself. Quote: Data! Hard data, Not individual sites, how many, regeneration, drops, times, real times, not "guessed". Over a period of days or weeks.
Those all already exist. Just put the tiny bit of effort into looking at it for yourself, so you aren't here spouting ignorance at everyone else. I honestly cannot believe the level of your commitment to ignorance.
Very well, I am pretty sure that telling CCP that you want more money, and then telling them to look it up for themselves will produce, very little boosts to null income.
However the wiser option is that an intelligent person chooses to follow the example of a successful achievement.
Which do you think will be most likely to produce the desired results?
Whilst I do not expect you to internalise reality, there are others who hopefully will.
I wish nullsec success with their efforts to achieve a desireable place to live and thrive in spite of your comments.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
698
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:42:09 -
[2410] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you? Actually, if you check the comments in the trollceptor article on TMC, I did the math: CONDI could mount an active defense of every sov structure it owns and still theoretically have 50% of its 11,997 members available to troll. Quote:I have faith your pilots will learn how to use more than just the F1 key. Really? Cuz we don't. :)
The real question is how many of those 12000 players are active? I've never seen more than a few hundred CONDI on a single battle report.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:44:48 -
[2411] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: Very well, I am sure telling CCP that tou want more money
Strawman. I live in highsec. What I want is for other areas of space to be competitive with highsec, and at present nullsec is not.
That's an established fact that they themselves are fully aware of. But since CCP can't get things done without someone beating the drum on things, it needs to be brought up.
Especially in this context, since making sov more of a pain to actually hold without dealing with the systemic income issues that area of space has been plagued with for literal years stands to be fairly problematic.
This is the time and place to bring it up.
Now knock off your obnoxious trolling already.
Quote: However if an intelligent person chooses to follow the example of a successful achievement.
You can fluff corbexx all you please, but that's a different situation, context, and you're giving him far, far too much credit for the change. (you know, seeing as wormholes were already being reworked anyway)
Once again, knock off your obnoxious trolling.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
155
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:46:19 -
[2412] - Quote
After Reading a lot of this stuff, i came to a conclusion.
1. Sov linki mod should be fited only to Battlecruisers or bigger ships.
2. you should be able to anchor pos modules on sov structures. Not as much as large tower, but how about we give sov structures PG/CPU of a small POS?
Than the atacker must bring sme thing more than just single ship and blanket he whole sov. They need to bring an actual small working fleet, but it will still be easy to take the sov.
I think it's very reasonable to give Sov sructures option to have POS mods on it.
4 small guns 1 scram and 1 web are easy to tank, come on :)
You could tank it in a single BS but you need to bring a BS, not an interceptor!
It would kill the problems we have now, and you could not blaket whole region risking nothing. You would have to bring some small force to reinforce sov, not a bloody frigate |
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:49:35 -
[2413] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:What im saying is, if you are presented with a batphone defense and no owners there's only so many alpha fleets they can field. Bring links in something that fleet cant hit and all of the sudden they're useless.
Also I proposed an exponential regen with a delay. Say for example they volley off all the links. It could take 5 minutes to even start regen and another 20 for it to be a meaningful amount of regen. All you need to do is barely start one cycle to reset that. Meanwhile that alpha fleet is hanging out in the open waiting for another group to roam on in and kill them. I still don't see an issue. As it is currently presented, at WORST the defenders spend 9.9 minutes rolling it back. If we reverse occupancy multipliers to assist that, it is 2.5 minutes - 150 seconds to secure the objective. That's not a huge effort wall. Its helpful for owners as well. It will allow defenders to pursue an enemy when they leave a structure to go attack another one of the owners structures, which i imagine will not be uncommon. But I will cede that there are much larger issues than this plaguing the sov plans. Indeed. I do think the occupancy should work as I suggested though. Yes it's a double bonus to owners who use their space - but that's a carrot, not a stick. Needing to link it for 40 minutes on offence, but 2.5 in defense is a pretty big hurdle to get passed and a good reward for well used space.
The problem is there's going to be a good chunk of low level occupancy systems until the isk starts raining in 0.0 and tbh even after. It should be harder to defend such space but not impossible. Say I own two constellations, there will probably only be a handful of high level occupancy systems with the rest being medium to low. The strategy for my oppenent is just going to be to bounce around my space reinforcing all of my stuff bit by bit. If i drive them off they go to the next system. I then have to follow them leaving marginally degraded timers all around my space.
I'd be satisfied if they only regened if they were above say, 85% and slowly at that. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1574
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:50:49 -
[2414] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Very well, I am sure telling CCP that tou want more money
Strawman. I live in highsec. What I want is for other areas of space to be competitive with highsec, and at present nullsec is not. That's an established fact that they themselves are fully aware of. But since CCP can't get things done without someone beating the drum on things, it needs to be brought up. Especially in this context, since making sov more of a pain to actually hold without dealing with the systemic income issues that area of space has been plagued with for literal years stands to be fairly problematic. This is the time and place to bring it up. Now knock off your obnoxious trolling already. Quote: However if an intelligent person chooses to follow the example of a successful achievement.
You can fluff corbexx all you please, but that's a different situation, context, and you're giving him far, far too much credit for the change. (you know, seeing as wormholes were already being reworked anyway) Once again, knock off your obnoxious trolling.
Having fun?
Possibly, you may wish to consider your fellow players, before dismissing logical and helpful suggestions.
No one is gaining by you using the forums as your personal method of releasing whatever personal and psycological issues you may have.
Back to the point, CCP had made changes, and Corbexx spent the time to present hard data to CCP to provide a degree of rebalance.
CCP are to be applauded for listening to reasoned discussion backed by hard data.
All I am suggesting is that It may be of value to follow an example of a process that worked.
As unsubstantiated requests and claims for more income are just going to be lost in the noise.
A balanced income and play experience for all areas is to be encouraged and welcome.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
87
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:51:01 -
[2415] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Ugly Eric wrote: ppl worried of the "trollceptors" or any superfast ships attacking from 200+km. Wake up lads! All the defender needs to do, is that they undock 1 ship per structure to sov-laser their own structure. If a sov entity having 50+ structures cannot undock 50+ defenders on their primetime, they simply do not deserve those amounts of sov.
What you are saying is patently false. Interceptors can kite and deal DPS to ships of any size. Undocking one ship per structure will never be enough even if we assume there will be one unstoppable, uncatchable interceptor per structure. The Interceptor trolling with sovereignty components will either kite the responding 'one ship' and easily deal with it, or if the one responding ship poses a realistic threat against it, will just speed out of that grid before it can be caught. There is absolutely nothing that an attacker needs to commit, there is zero risk that any contestant needs to take while the defender needs to commit and risk everything. Even assuming that the asset involved in contesting (Interceptor) is actually risked here, it looks ridiculous as a fitted interceptor is just a throw away ship, while gains that can be contested in sovereignty take time, a lot of collective effort and ISK to materialize. This is why Fozzie & Co needs to wake up, stop pretending to be sociologists attempting to change human behaviour and propensity to collude and collaborate for mutual gains, and instead, smell the ashes of risk-reward balance they have burned here. Developers need to focus on good sandbox design, not pretending to be spaceship-Marx, spaceship-Engels, spaceship-Arendt or (even though she isn't an accepted sociologist like the names I mentioned) spaceship-Rand. Human nature is what human nature has always been. Let's not kid ourselves, a rag tag team of game developers such as yourselves are not going to change it in this game by railroading the sandbox principles and any tangible risk-reward balance that was established previously in EVE's design. Now, any EVE player worth their salt and carefully following CCP as a company know very well that they are bleeding out subscribers (therefore, revenue) and even the Phoebe changes that were supposed to stop this bleed out did not end up alleviating it. What I'm saying here is that the development philosophy that seems to be taken up at CCP which hilariously reads out as "we will change human behaviour, we will cause more spaceships to explode over no tangible benefits to be had, and this will create new revenue for us". Contrary to what Fozzie, Seagull and the rest seems to believe, we, the player base that actively play, invest in and influence the world of EVE are not a congregation of stupid sheep. We will not suddenly start to spend our in-game and real-life resources for meaningless destruction and conflict that offer us no rewards just because a developer like Fozzie or an executive producer like Seagull decided that they prefer that we should in order for CCP to raise more revenue from an already dwindling player base in a 10+ years old game. Wake up, and smell the ashes CCP.
And if the attacker speeds away? Contest won. GF. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10070
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:51:30 -
[2416] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:lilol' me wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:Too often read here about unoccupied space.
To clarify: The systems that are actually empty are not worth anything which is the reason why they are, were and will be empty.
If the new sov system goes live even the slighly better system that are just good for 3 corpmembers will be empty aswell because there is absolutely no way to be online for 4h each day with 3 members and defend against a 20 fleet.
A system with -0.8 for example is just good for 10 simultanous operating corpmembers.
Don't you rent quite a lot of these useless regions for many billions? No we dont and does not change that they are useless. This may very well be true, but can someone PLEASE provide accurate independent and most importantly public data to show exactly how good or bad this is. For wormhole space Corbexx, our CSM spent days running sites in all classes of WH space to give accurate data that enabled CCP to rebalance lower class holes. If you do the same, you hopefully will benefit from similar results.
So CCP doesn't know how much null systems are worth. You're literally accusing CCP of being unable to do math.
Time and time again on these forums and others we've recounted how bad most anomalies are and how worthless most null systems are. CCP gave it a pass when they buff the "EHP/isk ratio of anoms, but the only thing it did was made one lower end class of anomalies (Forsaken Rally Points) somewhat more viable. This is because they added more cruisers and battleships but didn't address the real problems (where the npcs spawn in the site, the fact that some sites have stupid triggers thus creating monster incoming dps situations that aren't worth the time to do because you entire ship is nothing but tank, etc etc).
That was 2011 the last time they did any work with null sec anomalies.. And the EHP/Isk 'buff that wasn't a buff' was in reaction to this change that created the Renters Desert sov null is today. If you think that no one (including CCP) knows how bad things are you're crazy. They do know, the ESS was a sort of back hand 'buff' of lower end anomalies (with loyalty points).
Look at any map of null. Count the rental alliances. People don't rent out things it would be more profitable for them to use themselves.
Quote: Good active space is good for EVERYONE. But someone has to step up and start the work. And EVE being EVE, without that hard data, everyone will assume you are rolling naked in isk and just wanting more. And it really seems like that is not the case.
Null anomalies generate something like 70% of the isk injected into the game. That seems like a lot and it is, but that's because you have people full time afking anomalies and people spread out so that they can get apiece of the 'good' anomalies.
The issue is mo0re complicated than 'null doesn't make enough space cash. You can (and I do) make a good space-living farming anoms and doing escalations from them. The problem is that you can make the same amounts easily in high sec, under certain conditions you can make MORE in high sec as an individual pilot than you can in null (mission farm setups where you use standings to get good missions form several agents and farm them for 7 days, or high sec shiny incursion fleets). You can make WAY more in low sec and wormholes too. Here is a good recent thread.
There was a time when you couldn't do better than to stumble upon a DED 10/10 in null. Hell, BELT RATTING was enough income to keep you in ships for pvp. Nowadays real pro PVE players avoid Sov Null like the plague . Sov null isk making isn't impossible, it's just a poor choice compared to, say, flying a stealth bomber in faction warfare and spamming missions, (they don't make 600 mil per hour anymore, but 200-300 mil per hour flying a stealth bomber is obviously superior to the 90-100 mil per hour a pirate battleship could generate in null...).
As long as player can make the same or better isk elsewhere, there is no need for people to 'settle' in null. Renters exist all over null because renters have pretty low standards when it comes to isk making (for a newer corp, renting makes sense because sov null ratting and mining does have a pretty low barrier of entry compared to other things like high sec incursions).
CCp needs to take a good top to bottom look at pve and isk making. As We've been saying, you can't just change HOW sov works without working on the 'why'. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:54:04 -
[2417] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: Possibly, you may wish to consider your fellow players, before dismissing logical and helpful suggestions.
You are making neither helpful or logical suggestions.
You're doing nothing but trolling, and badly at that. Do everyone here a favor and shut up already.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
821
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:55:09 -
[2418] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:What im saying is, if you are presented with a batphone defense and no owners there's only so many alpha fleets they can field. Bring links in something that fleet cant hit and all of the sudden they're useless.
Also I proposed an exponential regen with a delay. Say for example they volley off all the links. It could take 5 minutes to even start regen and another 20 for it to be a meaningful amount of regen. All you need to do is barely start one cycle to reset that. Meanwhile that alpha fleet is hanging out in the open waiting for another group to roam on in and kill them. I still don't see an issue. As it is currently presented, at WORST the defenders spend 9.9 minutes rolling it back. If we reverse occupancy multipliers to assist that, it is 2.5 minutes - 150 seconds to secure the objective. That's not a huge effort wall. Its helpful for owners as well. It will allow defenders to pursue an enemy when they leave a structure to go attack another one of the owners structures, which i imagine will not be uncommon. But I will cede that there are much larger issues than this plaguing the sov plans. Indeed. I do think the occupancy should work as I suggested though. Yes it's a double bonus to owners who use their space - but that's a carrot, not a stick. Needing to link it for 40 minutes on offence, but 2.5 in defense is a pretty big hurdle to get passed and a good reward for well used space. The problem is there's going to be a good chunk of low level occupancy systems until the isk starts raining in 0.0 and tbh even after. It should be harder to defend such space but not impossible. Say I own two constellations, there will probably only be a handful of high level occupancy systems with the rest being medium to low. The strategy for my oppenent is just going to be to bounce around my space reinforcing all of my stuff bit by bit. If i drive them off they go to the next system. I then have to follow them leaving marginally degraded timers all around my space. I'd be satisfied if they only regened if they were above say, 85% and slowly at that.
Perhaps after the window ends. Maybe. It's only 10 minutes - nothing compared to a current structure repair.
But then, I think occupancy should be not system limited, perhaps a combination of adjacent systems values, or the sum thereof or similar. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1575
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:58:44 -
[2419] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:
This may very well be true, but can someone PLEASE provide accurate independent and most importantly public data to show exactly how good or bad this is.
For wormhole space Corbexx, our CSM spent days running sites in all classes of WH space to give accurate data that enabled CCP to rebalance lower class holes.
If you do the same, you hopefully will benefit from similar results.
So CCP doesn't know how much null systems are worth. You're literally accusing CCP of being unable to do math. Time and time again on these forums and others we've recounted how bad most anomalies are and how worthless most null systems are. CCP gave it a pass when they buff the "EHP/isk ratio of anoms, but the only thing it did was made one lower end class of anomalies (Forsaken Rally Points) somewhat more viable. This is because they added more cruisers and battleships but didn't address the real problems (where the npcs spawn in the site, the fact that some sites have stupid triggers thus creating monster incoming dps situations that aren't worth the time to do because you entire ship is nothing but tank, etc etc). That was 2011 the last time they did any work with null sec anomalies.. And the EHP/Isk 'buff that wasn't a buff' was in reaction to this change that created the Renters Desert sov null is today. If you think that no one (including CCP) knows how bad things are you're crazy. They do know, the ESS was a sort of back hand 'buff' of lower end anomalies (with loyalty points). Look at any map of null. Count the rental alliances. People don't rent out things it would be more profitable for them to use themselves. Quote: Good active space is good for EVERYONE. But someone has to step up and start the work. And EVE being EVE, without that hard data, everyone will assume you are rolling naked in isk and just wanting more. And it really seems like that is not the case.
Null anomalies generate something like 70% of the isk injected into the game. That seems like a lot and it is, but that's because you have people full time afking anomalies and people spread out so that they can get apiece of the 'good' anomalies. The issue is mo0re complicated than 'null doesn't make enough space cash. You can (and I do) make a good space-living farming anoms and doing escalations from them. The problem is that you can make the same amounts easily in high sec, under certain conditions you can make MORE in high sec as an individual pilot than you can in null (mission farm setups where you use standings to get good missions form several agents and farm them for 7 days, or high sec shiny incursion fleets). You can make WAY more in low sec and wormholes too. There was a time when you couldn't do better than to stumble upon a DED 10/10 in null. Hell, BELT RATTING was enough income to keep you in ships for pvp. Nowadays real pro PVE players avoid Sov Null like the plague . Sov null isk making isn't impossible, it's just a poor choice compared to, say, flying a stealth bomber in faction warfare and spamming missions, (they don't make 600 mil per hour anymore, but 200-300 mil per hour flying a stealth bomber is obviously superior to the 90-100 mil per hour a pirate battleship could generate in null...). As long as player can make the same or better isk elsewhere, there is no need for people to 'settle' in null. Renters exist all over null because renters have pretty low standards when it comes to isk making (for a newer corp, renting makes sense because sov null ratting and mining does have a pretty low barrier of entry compared to other things like high sec incursions).
You are absolutely right.
However, the difference is, someone took the effort, to combine that information, INTO ONE PLACE. And understood the realities, that CCP are worked extremely hard, and are trying to do a massive amount of work, in all areas of space. He did not do their job for them, but he assisted in making it possible to focus, clearly, and with all the knowledge they needed in one place.
It was not inconsiderable, it was a massive effort that took weeks. And it was worth it All I suggest is it is a good, practical, example to follow, if you wish to achieve similar goals.
And I am personally very strongly in favour of all areas of space being worthwhile.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
405
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:59:09 -
[2420] - Quote
Maybe it would be better just to get rid of Sov altogether.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1617
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:59:20 -
[2421] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?
No, not like that at all, or to put it a different way, exactly like that. Because if I only knock a chunk off the shields of a contemporary structure but fail to actually reinforce it, it replenishes itself on it's own and my work is undone. Quote: Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things?
They are. They killed the guy doing it before he could finish. Why should the attacker be allowed to have his influence linger after he's already dead?
If you don't have to tick it down, then you can have your SOV defended by your allies and never shop up yourself. This should not be supported. You want to hold SOV, you have to take care of it. Your blue can do the shooting all you want but you should keep it under your control. |
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:59:50 -
[2422] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:
I'd be satisfied if they only regened if they were above say, 85% and slowly at that.
Perhaps after the window ends. Maybe. It's only 10 minutes - nothing compared to a current structure repair. But then, I think occupancy should be not system limited, perhaps a combination of adjacent systems values, or the sum thereof or similar.
Yeah i'm hoping there will be no binary capture window, I made a post detailing what I think would be a better system a few pages back. I guess the regen is more important in that scenario than in the propsed one.
I hadn't thought of that approach to occupancy but, it definitely warrants some thought. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:02:09 -
[2423] - Quote
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.
"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.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:03:26 -
[2424] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: If you don't have to tick it down, then you can have your SOV defended by your allies and never shop up yourself.
False.
Only if the attacker fails to complete a cycle. You know, just like how failing to reinforce a pos works right now.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
696
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:03:38 -
[2425] - Quote
Why should these modules be usable on Interceptors?
Simple, I am after a system maybe two, with all the resources around in all of the major alliances I may need to mask my real target, so having the ability to reinforce systems in different constellations of the region will enable me to reduce the enemy force that can come and stop my main attack. The interceptor will allow me to actually get into systems. If your people are not defending those systems or do not have a POS there then it's your issue and to cover your weaknesses by making people use a ship that is so easy to catch in gate camps or catch with bubbles enables you to be lazy and not protect the systems.
If you want to own the system you need to defend it, so yes to being able to use these modules on interceptors!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
749
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:04:08 -
[2426] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:manufacturing, research, PI, pos reactors (not mining) and hacking mini-game sites should all contribute to the industrial index If the activity has you in space and vulnerable, I don't see any reason for it not to be included in the Industry index.
Mining meets that criteria. PI to some extent - I'd prefer to see it based on export taxes or the like, to ensure that folks are actually out in space rather than sitting in station / POS extracting endlessly to produce "points" or whatever.
Manufacture and research I'm a lot less comfortable with - depending on the metric used, you could game the hell out of that kind of a system by mass producing and recycling cheap stuff. In addition, you're only vulnerable for a brief period of time during the manufacturing cycle - when you import the raw materials the first time.
Hacking... eh, maybe. I don't see that as an Industry function.
Basically, tying the defensiveness of a particular system to the activity in space is the design goal. Anything that allows you to game that by improving the defensiveness while AFK, in a POS, or in a Station should not be considered at all.
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:06:00 -
[2427] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:lilol' me wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:Too often read here about unoccupied space.
To clarify: The systems that are actually empty are not worth anything which is the reason why they are, were and will be empty.
If the new sov system goes live even the slighly better system that are just good for 3 corpmembers will be empty aswell because there is absolutely no way to be online for 4h each day with 3 members and defend against a 20 fleet.
A system with -0.8 for example is just good for 10 simultanous operating corpmembers.
Don't you rent quite a lot of these useless regions for many billions? No we dont and does not change that they are useless. This may very well be true, but can someone PLEASE provide accurate independent and most importantly public data to show exactly how good or bad this is. For wormhole space Corbexx, our CSM spent days running sites in all classes of WH space to give accurate data that enabled CCP to rebalance lower class holes. If you do the same, you hopefully will benefit from similar results. Good active space is good for EVERYONE. But someone has to step up and start the work. And EVE being EVE, without that hard data, everyone will assume you are rolling naked in isk and just wanting more. And it really seems like that is not the case.
There's no need for "data" when everybody who's not triple boxing carriers ratting, making highend industry or reactions is making less money that they will with factional warfare, incursions or even lvl4 missions done right. They stay in null to hang with corpmates, pvp in massive fleets where we have fun sharing **** etc. Or to roleplay as provipeople. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:09:09 -
[2428] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Why should these modules be usable on Interceptors?
I have two opinions on this:
If they add that the Entosis module disables prop mods in addition to warp drives, then everything should be able to fit it.
If they do not add that, then it's fitting requirements should be sufficiently harsh as to be out of reach of every frigate class ship.
The reason it should disable prop mods is to encourage this as a fleet and group activity for both parties, not just jousting around solo in an interceptor. This encourages fights instead of dicking around, conflict instead of whack a mole timer grinding.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:09:48 -
[2429] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Why should these modules be usable on Interceptors?
Simple, I am after a system maybe two, with all the resources around in all of the major alliances I may need to mask my real target, so having the ability to reinforce systems in different constellations of the region will enable me to reduce the enemy force that can come and stop my main attack. The interceptor will allow me to actually get into systems. If your people are not defending those systems or do not have a POS there then it's your issue and to cover your weaknesses by making people use a ship that is so easy to catch in gate camps or catch with bubbles enables you to be lazy and not protect the systems.
If you want to own the system you need to defend it, so yes to being able to use these modules on interceptors!
There was a day when nothing could just warp out of a bubble, not that i was around to see it. I see no reason why arguably the most powerful module in the game should be able to be fit on something as elusive as an interceptor. If you want to escape bubbles use the mwd/cloak trick. If youre trying to get past a gate camp you will have to beat them. Its their system. They are active in it. You will have to fight them whether its on that gate or on their structure. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1617
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:11:17 -
[2430] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: If you don't have to tick it down, then you can have your SOV defended by your allies and never shop up yourself.
False. Only if the attacker fails to complete a cycle. You know, just like how failing to reinforce a pos works right now.
Leaving grid even if your ship gets killed does not restore the shield back to 100%. You can come back just a few minutes later and continue from relatively the same point unless the POS owner repped it up. |
|
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:13:03 -
[2431] - Quote
Over all, I think this is nice. I would modify one thing though.
I would split the capture module into two separate modules. One module is for sovereignty purposes. The other module is for any other purposes intended for this capture module. Please, retain increased cycle time for capitals.
The smallest ship class that can fit the sovereignty version of the module would be the battleship. The other module, not involved with sovereignty, can be fit by any ship class. With Battleships required for the sovereignty version of the module:
- strong counters to pure battleship fleets already exist, so battleship only fleets are infeasible. Mixed fleet types will become mandatory for the actual task of attacking sov
- gives battleships a game mechanic reason to exist in the game
- battleships already have enough high slots to fit this module without overly gimping their effectiveness. we wont see fleets with only ships that offer a utility high slot being viable in sov
- capitals that are capable of knocking out battleships will have a strong purpose again
- prevent attackers from harassing with a newb frigate/interceptor. If the goal is to simply harass, the attacker would be required to place a reasonably tempting target on the field. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1576
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:13:09 -
[2432] - Quote
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.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:16:30 -
[2433] - Quote
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. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:17:27 -
[2434] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: Leaving grid even if your ship gets killed does not restore the shield back to 100%. You can come back just a few minutes later and continue from relatively the same point unless the POS owner repped it up.
If I am shooting at a pos and I get blapped, if I do not return the pos will regenerate it's own shields over time.
I would expect nothing less from the successor mechanic. Only the timeframe is really changing.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
822
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:17:47 -
[2435] - Quote
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. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:18:22 -
[2436] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: 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.
False dichotomy, and an obvious one at that.
I would quote Darth Tyrannus and say "surely you can do better", but I know you're not able.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
822
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:19:59 -
[2437] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Leaving grid even if your ship gets killed does not restore the shield back to 100%. You can come back just a few minutes later and continue from relatively the same point unless the POS owner repped it up.
If I am shooting at a pos and I get blapped, if I do not return the pos will regenerate it's own shields over time. I would expect nothing less from the successor mechanic. Only the timeframe is really changing.
Except it's not shields and the ENTIRE driving premise behind this is to get owners undocked and looking after their own stuff. It would be completely contrary to the core idea. This is further reinforced (no pun) by the fact if you do NOT defend an RF, it NEVER ends.
I would doubt that "We can't be arsed doing 9.9 minutes of work, but our sov should be held for us" is going to carry much weight tbh. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:20:11 -
[2438] - Quote
afkalt wrote: That, and the obscene income from goo.
The better moons are worth about as much as a highsec ice miner. The worse ones less than that.
For the upkeep and book-keeping they require, they are just fine. There is absolutely nothing "obscene" about it.
Grr, Moons.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1576
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:22:12 -
[2439] - Quote
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.
I do agree, however if someone takes the time to collate accurate real income from these sources, and identifies precise areas where shortfalls are occuring, and specific issues with individual sites, that makes them troublesome and time consuming to do, then smaller iteriterative changes can be implemented, to help.
In wormhole space, very simple mechanics were introduced after the areas were identified and presented, that have had a significant improvement to livability in low class wormholes. It would be nice to see poor truesec, benefiting in the same way.
However if one waits, meekly, for CCP to do all the work, then it may be a long time before it rises to the top of the very r Large work pile.
With player contribution and effort, iterative changes can be designed and implemented in a very short time, without disrupting other projects and tasks.
Help CCP to Help us.
Is that unreasonable?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:22:16 -
[2440] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Except it's not shields
Yeah, it pretty much is. There is way more equivalency to be drawn here than not.
Quote: and the ENTIRE driving premise behind this is to get owners undocked and looking after their own stuff.
Citation needed. Also, they are, that's why they killed the attacker and he failed to reinforce.
If I get blapped while shooting a pos and do not return, then I get nothing. The same should apply here. If they don't succeed their progress should be zero.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:22:50 -
[2441] - 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.
The rich get richer and the poor live off their srp scraps. This is eve. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
224
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:23:11 -
[2442] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: That, and the obscene income from goo.
The better moons are worth about as much as a highsec ice miner. The worse ones less than that. For the upkeep and book-keeping they require, they are just fine. There is absolutely nothing "obscene" about it. Grr, Moons. I only had 2011 figures to work with but the R64s are worth somethign like 7 trillion a month.
WTB your ice mining ship |
Josef Djugashvilis
2903
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:23:52 -
[2443] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:I'm going to say I'm somewhat disappointed, but I shall return to comment after I go throw up.
Constructive feed back = best feed back.
This is not a signature.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:24:03 -
[2444] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: However if one waits, meekly, for CCP to do all the work, then it may be a long time before it rises to the top of the very r Large work pile.
That's the point, you obtuse fool.
It should be at the top of the pile right freaking now. We are talking about a nullsec revamp right now, this is the time to bring it up, this is the time to get it done.
"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.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:25:03 -
[2445] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: I only had 2011 figures to work with
I stopped reading after that. Well, actually, that's not true, I laughed uproariously at the "7 trillion" part.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:25:28 -
[2446] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: That, and the obscene income from goo.
The better moons are worth about as much as a highsec ice miner. The worse ones less than that. For the upkeep and book-keeping they require, they are just fine. There is absolutely nothing "obscene" about it. Grr, Moons. I only had 2011 figures to work with but the R64s are worth somethign like 7 trillion a month. WTB your ice mining ship
I think we need a CCP release of all of the moons class and locations. I never had to worry about them before because i had no chance of even thinking about owning one, but now...
|
Rex Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:30:34 -
[2447] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Leaving grid even if your ship gets killed does not restore the shield back to 100%. You can come back just a few minutes later and continue from relatively the same point unless the POS owner repped it up.
If I am shooting at a pos and I get blapped, if I do not return the pos will regenerate it's own shields over time. I would expect nothing less from the successor mechanic. Only the timeframe is really changing. Except it's not shields and the ENTIRE driving premise behind this is to get owners undocked and looking after their own stuff. It would be completely contrary to the core idea. This is further reinforced (no pun) by the fact if you do NOT defend an RF, it NEVER ends. I would doubt that "We can't be arsed doing 9.9 minutes of work, but our sov should be held for us" is going to carry much weight tbh.
Consequences should be enough tot keep people from touching a station, unless you are prepared tot face them. But trollceptor has no consequences. Its cheap and easy. Why not keep the idea but require a minimal commitment based on sec status. Scrap low sec NPC space and make it the roaming grounds for small gang PvP where entosis linkednsceptors can ref a station. But require in null sec that people bring bs or caps based on sec status. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:31:22 -
[2448] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: Yes, you tell CCP what there priorities are, yeah jump up and down, insult those who are trying to help you, Grr CCP.
You're not trying to help anyone, you're just trolling like you always do.
And yes, I damn sure am telling CCP where their priorities should lie. I'm not the one who let the game system languish for half a decade, after all. But then Incarna is a whole other story. The point stands that they have a huge technical debt to pay off. This game is ten years old in too many ways right now, and sov is merely the top of the list. There are many more ducks to shoot down once this is completed.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
696
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:33:13 -
[2449] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Why should these modules be usable on Interceptors?
Simple, I am after a system maybe two, with all the resources around in all of the major alliances I may need to mask my real target, so having the ability to reinforce systems in different constellations of the region will enable me to reduce the enemy force that can come and stop my main attack. The interceptor will allow me to actually get into systems. If your people are not defending those systems or do not have a POS there then it's your issue and to cover your weaknesses by making people use a ship that is so easy to catch in gate camps or catch with bubbles enables you to be lazy and not protect the systems.
If you want to own the system you need to defend it, so yes to being able to use these modules on interceptors! There was a day when nothing could just warp out of a bubble, not that i was around to see it. I see no reason why arguably the most powerful module in the game should be able to be fit on something as elusive as an interceptor. If you want to escape bubbles use the mwd/cloak trick. If youre trying to get past a gate camp you will have to beat them. Its their system. They are active in it. You will have to fight them whether its on that gate or on their structure.
Then those people are not protecting a system, they are protecting pipes or entry systems which negates what CCP is trying to do make people protect SYSTEMS, of course using WH's will get around it, but...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:33:55 -
[2450] - Quote
afkalt wrote: You're being utterly obtuse, I'm basically done arguing with you over this.
God, I hope so, you're being obnoxious.
Quote: It's in the damned dev blog. You don't even need to read between the lines.
You really should learn to just read.
That paragraph is specifically referring to an allied group using an Entosis link in the middle of the fight to pause the completion of the attack.
Two entirely different things.
Quote: If it regenerates, this premise is broken.
No, just the premise you made up out of whole cloth.
"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.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:35:42 -
[2451] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: Can be made in an even more elegant solution. Just make it use enough cap that a frigate will nto be able to keep a Prop mod on while using it. But for a cruiser that will not be a problem... and even less for larger ships.
Nope, wouldn't work.
It's on a long cycle time, and it only needs to work once. It would be just as binary, either the frigate would not have enough cap to activate it in the first place, or it would.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
822
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:36:02 -
[2452] - Quote
Afraid not. Read the blog and the flow charts again, without adding your own parts or making bits up.
It's all about how the SIDE is defined. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1617
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:36:41 -
[2453] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Leaving grid even if your ship gets killed does not restore the shield back to 100%. You can come back just a few minutes later and continue from relatively the same point unless the POS owner repped it up.
If I am shooting at a pos and I get blapped, if I do not return the pos will regenerate it's own shields over time. I would expect nothing less from the successor mechanic. Only the timeframe is really changing.
So up to a few hours depending how long my link was active to represent how long I was shooting at a POS?
The real way to prevent most of the trolling isn't to make the timer reset but to make the trolling harder to do. The 250km range on the T2 module is absurd. Why didn't they just make the T2 version's range just double from T2 or hell quadruple if you really must? No instead they introduced a module with 10 time the effective range. No wonder people are theorycrafting an epic amount of trolling with SOV when you can do it from the very limit of any targetting systems and also potentially be fitted to the most mobile kind of ships and people wonder why we might end up playing space tag... |
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:36:56 -
[2454] - Quote
Rex Crendraven wrote:afkalt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Leaving grid even if your ship gets killed does not restore the shield back to 100%. You can come back just a few minutes later and continue from relatively the same point unless the POS owner repped it up.
If I am shooting at a pos and I get blapped, if I do not return the pos will regenerate it's own shields over time. I would expect nothing less from the successor mechanic. Only the timeframe is really changing. Except it's not shields and the ENTIRE driving premise behind this is to get owners undocked and looking after their own stuff. It would be completely contrary to the core idea. This is further reinforced (no pun) by the fact if you do NOT defend an RF, it NEVER ends. I would doubt that "We can't be arsed doing 9.9 minutes of work, but our sov should be held for us" is going to carry much weight tbh. Consequences should be enough tot keep people from touching a station, unless you are prepared tot face them. But trollceptor has no consequences. Its cheap and easy. Why not keep the idea but require a minimal commitment based on sec status. Scrap low sec NPC space and make it the roaming grounds for small gang PvP where entosis linkednsceptors can ref a station. But require in null sec that people bring bs or caps based on sec status.
Scrap low sec? I think not. |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2709
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:38:16 -
[2455] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Leaving grid even if your ship gets killed does not restore the shield back to 100%. You can come back just a few minutes later and continue from relatively the same point unless the POS owner repped it up.
If I am shooting at a pos and I get blapped, if I do not return the pos will regenerate it's own shields over time. I would expect nothing less from the successor mechanic. Only the timeframe is really changing. So up to a few hours depending how long my link was active to represent how long I was shooting at a POS? The real way to prevent most of the trolling isn't to make the timer reset but to make the trolling harder to do. The 250km range on the T2 module is absurd. Why didn't they just make the T2 version's range just double from T2 or hell quadruple if you really must? No instead they introduced a module with 10 time the effective range. No wonder people are theorycrafting an epic amount of trolling with SOV when you can do it from the very limit of any targetting systems and also potentially be fitted to the most mobile kind of ships and people wonder why we might end up playing space tag...
Would be fun if they introduced this to FW though , hangin at 250km of the beacon
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:39:43 -
[2456] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Afraid not. Read the blog and the flow charts again, without adding your own parts or making bits up.
You first.
It does not mention the circumstance I am discussing. It says "in fights over an owned structure", indicating a fleet fight in progress. It then goes on to say that the ally force will not be able to add their own Entosis to the mix to try and help their ally by stopping the attacker's progress.
It does not say what happens if some solo trollceptor tries, gets blapped before he finishes, and I just leave.
And what I'm saying is that is should immediately reset or begin ticking down once any attackers using Entosis mods are dead.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
822
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:41:15 -
[2457] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:The real way to prevent most of the trolling isn't to make the timer reset but to make the trolling harder to do. The 250km range on the T2 module is absurd. Why didn't they just make the T2 version's range just double from T2 or hell quadruple if you really must? No instead they introduced a module with 10 time the effective range. No wonder people are theorycrafting an epic amount of trolling with SOV when you can do it from the very limit of any targetting systems and also potentially be fitted to the most mobile kind of ships and people wonder why we might end up playing space tag...
It is also hyperbolic FUD, these paper, "fast" ships will be torn apart at a moments notice by active pilots. Or simply ignored and blocked with their own links. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1577
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:41:15 -
[2458] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Yes, you tell CCP what there priorities are, yeah jump up and down, insult those who are trying to help you, Grr CCP.
You're not trying to help anyone, you're just trolling like you always do. And yes, I damn sure am telling CCP where their priorities should lie. I'm not the one who let the game system languish for half a decade, after all. But then Incarna is a whole other story. The point stands that they have a huge technical debt to pay off. This game is ten years old in too many ways right now, and sov is merely the top of the list. There are many more ducks to shoot down once this is completed.
Good luck with that then, however the alliance leaderships contain intelligent people with a good grasp of reality, so thankfully Nullsec is not depending on your contributions.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
822
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:42:59 -
[2459] - Quote
It's not worth it. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
227
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:44:01 -
[2460] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote:Afraid not. Read the blog and the flow charts again, without adding your own parts or making bits up.
You first. It does not mention the circumstance I am discussing. It says "in fights over an owned structure", indicating a fleet fight in progress. It then goes on to say that the ally force will not be able to add their own Entosis to the mix to try and help their ally by stopping the attacker's progress. It does not say what happens if some solo trollceptor tries, gets blapped before he finishes, and I just leave. And what I'm saying is that is should immediately reset or begin ticking down once any attackers using Entosis mods are dead. 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. |
|
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
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
230
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:26:03 -
[2491] - Quote
Super Stallion wrote: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. Of course a larger, more organised alliance should win. But they have to devote time to: disrupting PvE to lower the indices, RFing the structures, fighting the actual battles
AND THEN holding the space afterwards: using the space to raise the indices, protecting it during their own primetime.
Otherwise you just flip it straight back 2 days later. |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin. Black Legion.
2008
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:26:11 -
[2492] - Quote
What if only dreads or supers could fit the Entosis magic wand module?
- You mirror today's paradigm of SOV cap use without the structure grind, and capitals still get a role to play in SOV warfare. i.e. Why caps now? - A SOV fight would always involve at least one valuable asset from both sides. An aggressor needs to risk at least one valuable asset, a defender needs to at least field one also to counter-entosis. No cepter' frackery. Delicious IMHO.
What if ISK generation (the heart of EvE IMHO) was nerfed across the board, and net-buffed in null SOV held systems?
- People ask 'why SOV'? I say follow the money. Problem is it might not be compelling right now. Nerf ISK generation across New Eden including hisec, incursions, losec -- every single aspect of isk generation. Then have the SOV held system indices at 'normal' levels of occupancy use yield a net buff to ISK generation in null from current levels.
Would you like to know more?
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1998
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:26:15 -
[2493] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: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.
If someone live in the system it will not take 2 minutes. if someone live in sytem then they can neutralize the still ongoign Estosification of the structure with their own module.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
823
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:26:16 -
[2494] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: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.
It takes two minutes to START a reinforce.
>>Before occupancy defensive bonuses are applied, exerting uncontested control over Territorial Claim Units, Infrastructure Hubs and Outposts will take 10 minutes (plus the duration of the first cycle) and enabling/disabling station services will take 5 minutes (plus the duration of the first cycle). Like everything in this plan, these numbers are subject to change based on playtesting and discussion. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
699
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:26:17 -
[2495] - Quote
Kagura Nikon 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. There will be WAY less structures to shoot. The structure grind at the end will be a mere formality. The new system takes the same amount of grinding time regardless of if you have fone person doing it or one thousand. That is huge, no longer are supercap blobs required to take space without putting your whole alliance on suicide watch.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:27:28 -
[2496] - Quote
Elenahina wrote: 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.
Null is kind of supposed to be the end game, where dose people who have played this game for so long have to go to get away from the frigate game. SP should acually count for something, CCPs idea that newbro should be able to take sov is backwards. If you want to fly small gang pvp go do FW not null sec. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
232
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:27:30 -
[2497] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: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 So make it so the Sov bonuses only work in favour of the holding group, no passive ratting bonuses etc for anyone that happens to be in the same system, only benefit the group that actually holds the sov.
Great we just split a big alliance into two. Working as intended. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
699
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:28:45 -
[2498] - 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.
Yea, the CSM overwhelmingly disagreeing with this is why we've seen so many CSM speak out against it--oh wait, they haven't.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1619
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:30:52 -
[2499] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: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.
It takes up to 42 minutes to complete a reinforce, not 2 unless you were stupid enough to leave your structure with a pre-capped timer of only 1 second left.. You can use your own space and only be "defending" a particular structure when you get a warning about that one. If defender bonus get applied when you de-cap your own structure, then you will be able to reset the timer to a full 40 minute.
As much as I want to attacker to work to get SOV, the defender should work to keep his. Keep your index high and you would be allowed longer response window and faster de-cap timers. Not keeping your index up mean you are not using that space anyway so I don't see why you should keep it. |
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:32:27 -
[2500] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kagura Nikon 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. There will be WAY less structures to shoot. The structure grind at the end will be a mere formality. The new system takes the same amount of grinding time regardless of if you have fone person doing it or one thousand. That is huge, no longer are supercap blobs required to take space without putting your whole alliance on suicide watch.
I agree that there is far less grinding. I also agree that less grinding is good. But, this isnt being brought to us as a system to reduce grinding. This is being brought to us as a system which will change how sov war is conducted.
Sadly, this system does not change how sov war is conducted. It only changes the final stage, cleaning up our mess.
edit: also changes how defender is notified that the system is in danger. but that is superfluous in that, your trading one eve male notification of a blockaid unit being erected for an eve mail notification of an entosis module being activated |
|
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:33:55 -
[2501] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: 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
Again :
I see no issue with that.
People defending must be the real owners so ...
That mean ally member john doe from Joe Alliance 1 cannot defend a Joe Alliance 2 node wich is good to display people accross systems. If you want more flexibility you have to sustain a bigger vulnerability window.
The goal is to localize conflicts and break big renting block. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
233
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:34:02 -
[2502] - Quote
Super Stallion wrote:I agree that there is far less grinding. I also agree that less grinding is good. But, this isnt being brought to us as a system to reduce grinding. This is being brought to us as a system which will change how sov war is conducted.
Sadly, this system does not change how sov war is conducted. It only changes the final stage, cleaning up our mess. It introduces the ability for small groups to harass and stretch out a larger group WITHOUT needing to drop (and whelp) a vulnerable supercap fleet to do so...
Did you miss the bit of the thread about trollceptors? |
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:34:34 -
[2503] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: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. Yea, the CSM overwhelmingly disagreeing with this is why we've seen so many CSM speak out against it--oh wait, they haven't.
I don't see much in the way of positive affirmation of these changes from the CSM either. Silence doesn't not imply they condone or endorse this change.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2712
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:38:16 -
[2504] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: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. Yea, the CSM overwhelmingly disagreeing with this is why we've seen so many CSM speak out against it--oh wait, they haven't. I don't see much in the way of positive affirmation of these changes from the CSM either. Silence doesn't not imply they condone or endorse this change.
It implies they need to ask 'their leaders' aka reall CSM on what position 'they' should take or it implies they rather await till the storm of complaints from players has lowered so that they can pick the most popular concerns as 'their own concerns' .
That is what it implies . If that is the case is a second thing .
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
700
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:41:06 -
[2505] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: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. Yea, the CSM overwhelmingly disagreeing with this is why we've seen so many CSM speak out against it--oh wait, they haven't. I don't see much in the way of positive affirmation of these changes from the CSM either. Silence doesn't not imply they condone or endorse this change.
It also doesnt mean that they hate it. Considering that the last time CCP went over the CSM's head they were quite vocal, it seems safe to assume the CSM were aware of the changes, and werent strongly opposed.
Edit: or as flakeys said, they are waiting to take a public stand because they are playing politics.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:43:19 -
[2506] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Super Stallion wrote:I agree that there is far less grinding. I also agree that less grinding is good. But, this isnt being brought to us as a system to reduce grinding. This is being brought to us as a system which will change how sov war is conducted.
Sadly, this system does not change how sov war is conducted. It only changes the final stage, cleaning up our mess. It introduces the ability for small groups to harass and stretch out a larger group WITHOUT needing to drop (and whelp) a vulnerable supercap fleet to do so... Did you miss the bit of the thread about trollceptors?
I am not seeing a difference between a troll ceptor and a troll-industrial erecting a blockaid unit. Both accomplish the same thing. Both annoy the defender to no end. Both need to be dealt with.
But I would not declare the swapping of one for the other as a fundamental change to how sov war is conducted. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3964
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:43:59 -
[2507] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Arik Alabel
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:51:24 -
[2508] - Quote
Super Stallion wrote: I do not see changes to how sov wars are actually fought today.
then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting.
|
Arik Alabel
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:54:00 -
[2509] - Quote
Super Stallion wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Super Stallion wrote:I agree that there is far less grinding. I also agree that less grinding is good. But, this isnt being brought to us as a system to reduce grinding. This is being brought to us as a system which will change how sov war is conducted.
Sadly, this system does not change how sov war is conducted. It only changes the final stage, cleaning up our mess. It introduces the ability for small groups to harass and stretch out a larger group WITHOUT needing to drop (and whelp) a vulnerable supercap fleet to do so... Did you miss the bit of the thread about trollceptors? I am not seeing a difference between a troll ceptor and a troll-industrial erecting a blockaid unit. Both accomplish the same thing. Both annoy the defender to no end. Both need to be dealt with. But I would not declare the swapping of one for the other as a fundamental change to how sov war is conducted.
You seem to be completely missing the point. A "troll-industrial" doesn't exist because the owner's defensive SBU would have to be killed first. And kill and replace 51% of the sbu's in that system. You don't do that in a no effort "troll-industrial". |
Killbac Orator
KB's Malevolent Monks
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:57:06 -
[2510] - Quote
My two isk worth...
Good initial concept for nul sov changes. Entosis module should fit and function according to ship class. All ship classes retain same activation timer.
1. Inability to warp off once activated, and for duration of cycle. 2. Cap consumption penalty based on ship class ( pulse that MWD ceptors!) 3. One module class that incorporates range penalty based upon fitted ship class ( ceptor = 50km, BC = 100km, BS = 250km) with 250km max for any fitted ship class greater than BS, ( no need for a T2 variant ). 4. No external repps, links, ect.
TZ needs some added consideration. Wouldn't want anyone excluded from game play.
Fight!!!
As far as the detractors and naysayers are concerned...
"Overall score for Sovereignty Conquests: WeGÇÖre successfully off life support, but we absolutely need to do better."
This has been a long time coming. The long debated "null is stagnant" refrain by the Eve community is largely a result of the big bloc alliances who have carved out their niche space and became complacent. Meanwhile CCP sat idly by and failed to act upon a negative trend. Now CCP is fixing it. Adapt or go elsewhere!
"Over the medium term, we see the potential for more substantial changes in the nullsec status quo as the various competing parties work to adjust their internal objectives to the new situation; it seems plausible that the general reduction in travel capabilities will lead to more localism, but we don't want to make any firm predictions in this area. We're confident that these changes improve the overall system of lowsec and nullsec gameplay and take them in better directions, but any set of changes that would allow us to accurately predict their consequences would by their nature be too simple to be interesting for very long."
Please note: "nullsec status quo" and "localism". I read that as a good thing. We all know that the real stagnation in null is not null itself, but the controlling alliance blocs that are resistant to anything that forces them to defend against anyone smaller than their crony enemy alliances. Change is coming, like it or not.
|
|
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:59:16 -
[2511] - Quote
Well once these changes are made I see me and my corp mates coming out on top. It will be very fun continuously flipping systems with nothing more than a small gang. "You can't be everywhere all the time" |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2714
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:01:08 -
[2512] - Quote
Killbac Orator wrote: 3. One module class that incorporates range penalty based upon fitted ship class ( ceptor = 50km, BC = 100km, BS = 250km) with 250km max for any fitted ship class greater than BS, ( no need for a T2 variant ).
This actually looks by far one of the better solutions.Might want to also add a different cycletime according to shiptype going from a shorter period for bs to a longer period for frig size but if you do the difference should not be too far from each other.
So make it one type of module but different versions of it wich can only fit to X type of shipsize.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2832
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:09:53 -
[2513] - Quote
Shorten range of module to 75 km so that a reasonably spec'd anti-interceptor Destroyer can engage. Interceptor immunity gone.
No T2 module in game increases performance by a factor of 10. This module shouldn't be the first. I have a feeling the devs put the 250km number out there as a red herring. They are setting expectations "high" so that when they come back with a number like 100km you will be happy rather than upset that most ships can't hit an interceptor at 100km.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:10:21 -
[2514] - Quote
Arik Alabel wrote:Super Stallion wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Super Stallion wrote:I agree that there is far less grinding. I also agree that less grinding is good. But, this isnt being brought to us as a system to reduce grinding. This is being brought to us as a system which will change how sov war is conducted.
Sadly, this system does not change how sov war is conducted. It only changes the final stage, cleaning up our mess. It introduces the ability for small groups to harass and stretch out a larger group WITHOUT needing to drop (and whelp) a vulnerable supercap fleet to do so... Did you miss the bit of the thread about trollceptors? I am not seeing a difference between a troll ceptor and a troll-industrial erecting a blockaid unit. Both accomplish the same thing. Both annoy the defender to no end. Both need to be dealt with. But I would not declare the swapping of one for the other as a fundamental change to how sov war is conducted. You seem to be completely missing the point. A "troll-industrial" doesn't exist because the owner's defensive SBU would have to be killed first. And kill and replace 51% of the sbu's in that system. You don't do that in a no effort "troll-industrial".
I guess we will just have to see how these changes actually play out. I would love to see a major change. I would love to see a change that truly impacts how wars are fought.
Sadly, just as i have gotten side tracked in the conversation, I think that this design for null sov got side tracked into producing a mini game to replace the very final stages of a war with some fun opportunities for trolling mixed in. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
233
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:10:52 -
[2515] - Quote
flakeys wrote:Killbac Orator wrote: 3. One module class that incorporates range penalty based upon fitted ship class ( ceptor = 50km, BC = 100km, BS = 250km) with 250km max for any fitted ship class greater than BS, ( no need for a T2 variant ).
This actually looks by far one of the better solutions.Might want to also add a different cycletime according to shiptype going from a shorter period for bs to a longer period for frig size but if you do the difference should not be too far from each other. So make it one type of module but different versions of it wich can only fit to X type of shipclass.Basically the same way a shield booster is now. I don't think this is really necessary because there's already the hard limits of how many sebos and rigs you can fit to your ship to extend the locking range far enough anyways (and the associated gimping that does to the rest of your fit)...
Seems like the fear of the 80dps with no application beyond their own noses, no tackle, no tank trollceptors is getting to people too much
edit: Forgot to say 100m per ship, 80dps with no application beyond their own noses, no tackle, no tank trollceptors... |
FourDrink Minimum
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:11:15 -
[2516] - Quote
Killbac Orator wrote: 3. One module class that incorporates range penalty based upon fitted ship class ( ceptor = 50km, BC = 100km, BS = 250km) with 250km max for any fitted ship class greater than BS, ( no need for a T2 variant ).
To expand on this, divide entosis mods into separate classes like the 1MN/10MN/100MN propulsion mods and balance accordingly.
For example: The capital version takes 4x longer to cap. The battleship version has a huge range. The cruiser version caps the fastest, but has short range. The frigate version has the shortest range and scaling penalty to cap time based on sov index.
Then you can tune the sov capture process based on individual ship classes and you don't have to have a one-size-fits-all approach to the module. For obvious reasons, you'd have to lock the entosis mods to ship size, unlike with propulsion mods. |
Killbac Orator
KB's Malevolent Monks
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:12:37 -
[2517] - Quote
I'm game for anything that includes common sense, fun, and of course, Fights!!! :) |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2714
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:14:39 -
[2518] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Shorten range of module to 75 km so that a reasonably spec'd anti-interceptor Destroyer can engage. Interceptor immunity gone.
No T2 module in game increases performance by a factor of 10. This module shouldn't be the first. I have a feeling the devs put the 250km number out there as a red herring. They are setting expectations "high" so that when they come back with a number like 100km you will be happy rather than upset that most ships can't hit an interceptor at 100km.
A trick my wife does a lot .
You can guess in wich way .
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
569
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:21:41 -
[2519] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?
it does not require the whole of goonswarm federation to contest someone else's sov
we send EUTZ to go wreck nerds and leave USTZ home to defend
easy peasy |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
233
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:23:11 -
[2520] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?
it does not require the whole of goonswarm federation to contest someone else's sov we send EUTZ to go wreck nerds and leave USTZ home to defend easy peasy Yeah, they definitely need to scale primetimes with sov size...
24hrs primetime if you hold over 3 regions sounds fine to me |
|
Killbac Orator
KB's Malevolent Monks
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:25:23 -
[2521] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:Systems are empty because they are not even worth advertising them for rent:
Open the map, look for military and industry indices. Every system that has both at 0 and and bad security status is totally worthless (maybe just enough for a single player, but no single player will take the risk and live there). Some systems have strategic functions, some are just for travel and the rest of empty systems are just for having an alert if your alli gets invaded.
As nearly all systems in renter space are free to rent, even the low status and strategic ones, and noone rents them they must be worthless. This i see as proof.
I cannot deny the viability, or lack of, in many of the systems in null. However, I am confident that this will be addressed as well in the coming months. This more than just SOV, It's about null overall. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1621
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:25:55 -
[2522] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?
it does not require the whole of goonswarm federation to contest someone else's sov we send EUTZ to go wreck nerds and leave USTZ home to defend easy peasy Yeah, they definitely need to scale primetimes with sov size... 24hrs primetime if you hold over 3 regions sounds fine to me
Make it adaptable per region/constellation/systems. That way you can adjust to whatever your prime really is. Large alliance can cover most timezone so they could have a different spot vulnerable at different time to enable "content" to everybody. Smaller group might be lacking in some timezone so they concentrate everything on their effective prime. |
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1432
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:25:59 -
[2523] - Quote
CCP have created a catch 22.
Any system that allows "a very small group of players in virtually any ship types should be able to completely conquer an undefended system with a few ~10-30 minute sessions spread across a few days" is a system that is open to trolling.
Any counter to trolling will also prevent "a very small group of players in virtually any ship types completely conquering an undefended system with a few ~10-30 minute sessions spread across a few days".
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:30:19 -
[2524] - Quote
Killbac Orator wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:Systems are empty because they are not even worth advertising them for rent:
Open the map, look for military and industry indices. Every system that has both at 0 and and bad security status is totally worthless (maybe just enough for a single player, but no single player will take the risk and live there). Some systems have strategic functions, some are just for travel and the rest of empty systems are just for having an alert if your alli gets invaded.
As nearly all systems in renter space are free to rent, even the low status and strategic ones, and noone rents them they must be worthless. This i see as proof.
I cannot deny the viability, or lack of, in many of the systems in null. However, I am confident that this will be addressed as well in the coming months. This more than just SOV, It's about null overall.
I am putting my hope in that because the actually presented capture the flag system is total rubbish and will bring the few good systems to uselessness. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
235
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:31:11 -
[2525] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Yeah, they definitely need to scale primetimes with sov size... 24hrs primetime if you hold over 3 regions sounds fine to me Make it adaptable per region/constellation/systems. That way you can adjust to whatever your prime really is. Large alliance can cover most timezone so they could have a different spot vulnerable at different time to enable "content" to everybody. Smaller group might be lacking in some timezone so they concentrate everything on their effective prime. Exactly, either scale by number of members or by number of systems/contellations/regions...
THEN provide sov bonuses only for the actual holding alliance members.
If you want to splinter into separate alliances to restrict it to 4hr windows then you need to split your defensive members across each alliance as well. Sure they can keep all blued coalitions but it forces them into localised fragments. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
6124
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:33:04 -
[2526] - Quote
125 pages, 2 CSM posts. This shows how little your vote matters. If it had to be any more obvious.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
TarPalantir I
Evolution Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:38:40 -
[2527] - Quote
Tar-Palantir is a pretty much life long member of Evolution. That means he has been in BoB, IT, INIT, 401K, and now NCdot alliances. All of them had different ways of fighting, scale, and approaches to the Sov side of Null-Sec. What most had in common is that they fought Wars. Not fights, not battles, but Wars and all that comes with it - the logistics, the attacks, counter attacks, new strategies, new doctrines, new allies, new enemies, months and months of constant fighting towards a *goal*. That is Tar-Palantir's passion. Whether NCdot holds sov or not Tar-Palantir doesn't care per se - as long as NCdot still fights Wars Tar-Palantir will remain active. So what he wants most out of a Sov system is something that allows not just fighting, not just roaming gangs, but Wars. For that to work, the Attacker must be able to threaten stuff effectively, but the Defender must also be confident enough in their ability to defend their Sov that they invest in their Sov space and put assets there. With that investment there, when an attacker comes, it is worth fighting to defend rather than just running away.
Being Tar-Palantir, his thoughts about the new Sov system turned into a rather massive Wall of TextGäó. Such a massive Wall of of TextGäó isn't a good fit for a forum discussion - it just chews up too much space. So instead of inserting the whole thing here it is publish on EN24 as those type of sites make more sense for something that long and wordy.
External link to EN24 article - http://evenews24.com/2015/03/05/tar-palantirs-take-on-the-proposed-sovereignty-changes/
So that you'll have a slight idea what Tar-Palantir is talking about he will put a VERY brief summary of some of the main points here. You have the main article link if that interests you.
1. The risk/resources/benefit structure is very heavily tilted in favor of the attacker. It doesn't mean the attacker will always win, just that the attacker can put forth minimal effort and resources - low risk - and cause massive problems/grief for the defender.
2. Properly executed Blitzkrieg attacks even between = number alliances can result in the defender looking at losing most/all of their Sov in a 3 day time span based on about 6-7 hours of game play.
3. The Prime Time invulnerability Window is very, very, very limiting.
4. Removing the Prime Time Vulnerability window makes being the defender utter insanity and more than a little frustrating.
6. (yes, skipping 5) - Large numbers are even more critical than ever for defense. Small powers can threaten and even take Sov due to the imbalances mentioned in #1, but they are very unlikely to be able to hold it.
Some Sov ideas/concepts mostly from the old POS system that Tar-Palantir considers useful for thinking about the design of a Sov system. Yes, Tar-Palantir believes the old POS system, for all its flaws, was far better than both Dominion Sov and this new proposal.
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
176
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:40:11 -
[2528] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:125 pages, 2 CSM posts. This shows how little your vote matters. If it had to be any more obvious.
100's near thousands of post about afk cloaky camping, and ccp refuses to acknowledge that its a problem, fozzie comes up with this sov change and cloaky camping is going to go up but I promise you this.
they'll provide a pretty pie chart saying it isn't so.
csm is nothing but puppets and a gimmick for elite ego's that want to play with it, nothing else, he gives them the insider news and they only protect their interest.. they are not for protecting anyone else.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2832
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:41:07 -
[2529] - Quote
In the end, the defenders will assign the boring tasks of Sov defense to their alts - like always.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:41:43 -
[2530] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Arrendis wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:The same tears were spilled over the jump fatigue mechanic and that change has proven to be very healthy for the game as a whole, despite the vocal minority who relied so heavily on teleporation to do even the most basic things in the game. Actually, if you go back and look, a lot of the initial complaints about jump fatigue were about a)logistics of living out in null, and b)the fact that it was possible to rack up a jump timer of over 8 millenia. And those got addressed. the 30 day fatigue timer still sucks balls for those who dont pay attention, it really needs to be capped at a week max You sound like someone who gets mad because they keep running out of gas. If only they would just pay attention to the gas gauge. |
|
Killbac Orator
KB's Malevolent Monks
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:45:10 -
[2531] - Quote
And this may be something that CCP will have to visit as a potential issue. But for the time being, and from my perspective, I view all of this as a good thing with excellent potential for new strategies like:
Forced diplomacy, more small gang roams, system ransoms (lol) etc. Either way, those of us who are on the forums with a box of lemons trying to make lemonade ( with some whiskey ) are doing exactly what CCP wants us to do as players. And that is: Come up with new and exciting ways to keep OUR game moving forward into the next ten years. This is EVE.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10073
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:48:07 -
[2532] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
100's near thousands of post about afk cloaky camping, and ccp refuses to acknowledge that its a problem
That's because it's not a problem except for the weak, lazy and un-creative.
What I tell afk cloakers:
[Typhoon, F YOU AFKguy] Internal Force Field Array I 'Repose' Core Compensation 'Repose' Core Compensation 'Repose' Core Compensation Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Large Micro Jump Drive Target Spectrum Breaker Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 'Copasetic' Particle Field Acceleration Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit I Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Curator II x4 Hornet EC-300 x5 |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin. Black Legion.
2008
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:48:50 -
[2533] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:125 pages, 2 CSM posts. This shows how little your vote matters. If it had to be any more obvious. Xenuria for CSM, now more than ever.
Would you like to know more?
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
58
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:53:40 -
[2534] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:125 pages, 2 CSM posts. This shows how little your vote matters. If it had to be any more obvious.
Yeah, its pretty clear we are not being listened to. I'd go out ona limb and say the CSM told ccp that this whole patch was terrible but ccp released it anyways and their silence is more damning than the 125 page thread.
|
El'Grimm
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:55:05 -
[2535] - Quote
Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote:Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses? I think you'll get bored to alarmclocking to grief euro timers every 2 days.. emm, in 1-2 weeks. :)
Your having a laugh aren't you, I cant think of any of the big blocs who haven't got a mortal game enemy that has literally been after them for years, hell the two largest blocs are that enemy to each other, and beyond that they each have further dedicated enemies thats only purpose is to see them fail. 2 weeks is seriously nothing to us guys, previous sov wars have active wars that last for months and months and grudges that NEVER stop.
Best way to stop the troll tactic, BC hull and above. If a new group cant field a few BC's, then they clearly cant move the tcu/ihub/pos's that MUST go with holding sov, and it automatically stops nullified ships being troll worthy, and brings much needed value to BC and BS hulls. Hell new groups might even figure out what boosts are about if a BC is the ship they must look at for a starting point. |
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1432
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:56:24 -
[2536] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Abrazzar wrote:125 pages, 2 CSM posts. This shows how little your vote matters. If it had to be any more obvious. Yeah, its pretty clear we are not being listened to. I'd go out ona limb and say the CSM told ccp that this whole patch was terrible but ccp released it anyways and their silence is more damning than the 125 page thread.
Go to the campaigns forum, post a thread, each CSM candidate to post their opinion on these changes before voting closes. (That's if, you care about the CSM). |
Proton Stars
OREfull
58
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:58:03 -
[2537] - Quote
El'Grimm wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote:Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses? I think you'll get bored to alarmclocking to grief euro timers every 2 days.. emm, in 1-2 weeks. :) Your having a laugh aren't you, I cant think of any of the big blocs who haven't got a mortal game enemy that has literally been after them for years, hell the two largest blocs are that enemy to each other, and beyond that they each have further dedicated enemies thats only purpose is to see them fail. 2 weeks is seriously nothing to us guys, previous sov wars have active wars that last for months and months and grudges that NEVER stop. Best way to stop the troll tactic, BC hull and above. If a new group cant field a few BC's, then they clearly cant move the tcu/ihub/pos's that MUST go with holding sov, and it automatically stops nullified ships being troll worthy, and brings much needed value to BC and BS hulls. Hell new groups might even figure out what boosts are about if a BC is the ship they must look at for a starting point.
those wars lasted 4 months because the pilots in them could sleep during their own RL 'night time'. Eve used to be about alarm clocking and it used to also be about burn out and disbanding alliances.
Why do people seem to think making 0.0 a job is a good idea? why does the workload to play a game have to be so high? And more than anything else why on gods earth did they choose to build a 'fix' model on an area of 0.0 renowned for being filled with people who dont have a clue? |
Proton Stars
OREfull
58
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:01:53 -
[2538] - Quote
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:Proton Stars wrote:Abrazzar wrote:125 pages, 2 CSM posts. This shows how little your vote matters. If it had to be any more obvious. Yeah, its pretty clear we are not being listened to. I'd go out ona limb and say the CSM told ccp that this whole patch was terrible but ccp released it anyways and their silence is more damning than the 125 page thread. Go to the campaigns forum, post a thread, each CSM candidate to post their opinion on these changes before voting closes. (That's if, you care about the CSM).
someone already has. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:04:52 -
[2539] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?
it does not require the whole of goonswarm federation to contest someone else's sov we send EUTZ to go wreck nerds and leave USTZ home to defend easy peasy Yeah, they definitely need to scale primetimes with sov size... 24hrs primetime if you hold over 3 regions sounds fine to me no problem, we just break into multiple holding alliances and shift pilots around as they are needed to defend |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
792
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:06:57 -
[2540] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:El'Grimm wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote:Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses? I think you'll get bored to alarmclocking to grief euro timers every 2 days.. emm, in 1-2 weeks. :) Your having a laugh aren't you, I cant think of any of the big blocs who haven't got a mortal game enemy that has literally been after them for years, hell the two largest blocs are that enemy to each other, and beyond that they each have further dedicated enemies thats only purpose is to see them fail. 2 weeks is seriously nothing to us guys, previous sov wars have active wars that last for months and months and grudges that NEVER stop. Best way to stop the troll tactic, BC hull and above. If a new group cant field a few BC's, then they clearly cant move the tcu/ihub/pos's that MUST go with holding sov, and it automatically stops nullified ships being troll worthy, and brings much needed value to BC and BS hulls. Hell new groups might even figure out what boosts are about if a BC is the ship they must look at for a starting point. those wars lasted 4 months because the pilots in them could sleep during their own RL 'night time'. Eve used to be about alarm clocking and it used to also be about burn out and disbanding alliances.
What night time? The last wars we fought, our EU (IT, NCdot and Raiden) and US (Test) enemies had to default to timing for AUS timezone because we had everything else covered, and still all that did was slow us down. Its actually better for us if the people who we want to greif time away from our chosen Prime, since the guys having to play "defender" wont be strung out also by going on the offense, instead you'll have our fresh other timezones with literally nothing better to do. |
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
236
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:08:17 -
[2541] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?
it does not require the whole of goonswarm federation to contest someone else's sov we send EUTZ to go wreck nerds and leave USTZ home to defend easy peasy Yeah, they definitely need to scale primetimes with sov size... 24hrs primetime if you hold over 3 regions sounds fine to me no problem, we just break into multiple holding alliances and shift pilots around as they are needed to defend Force Sov bonuses to only apply to current members of the holding alliance = holding alliances are useless for actually using the space unless you're a member of that holding alliance.
Add a week delay to using entosis links after jumping alliance = can't just jump around your pvpers from alliance to alliance as needed.
Make Sov bonuses only apply during your primetime period = US tz players won't be able to use EU tz alliances sov effectively (edit: unless they extend the primetime period to cover both groups.)
Keep dancing. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
276
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:12:24 -
[2542] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Make Sov bonuses only apply during your primetime period = US tz players won't be able to use EU tz alliances sov effectively.
Do you have any idea how phenomenally bad this idea is? 'Hey, null players! You only have reason to be logged in during this 4 hour window! Let's make null more empty!' |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
236
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:13:57 -
[2543] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Make Sov bonuses only apply during your primetime period = US tz players won't be able to use EU tz alliances sov effectively.
Do you have any idea how phenomenally bad this idea is? 'Hey, null players! You only have reason to be logged in during this 4 hour window! Let's make null more empty!' I amended that afterwards :)
'unless they extend the primetime period to cover both groups playtime' |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
276
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:18:08 -
[2544] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Make Sov bonuses only apply during your primetime period = US tz players won't be able to use EU tz alliances sov effectively.
Do you have any idea how phenomenally bad this idea is? 'Hey, null players! You only have reason to be logged in during this 4 hour window! Let's make null more empty!' I amended that afterwards :) 'unless they extend the primetime period to cover both groups playtime' edit: I kinda like the risk/reward of that actually: Adjusting your primetime length affects your income potential but also makes you more vulnerable for longer periods and requires more defence. Depends on what the sov bonuses are changed to though.
It's still just going to mean that claimed space will be utterly empty when invulnerable. That's not how you get a more dynamic nullsec with more fights. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:19:08 -
[2545] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?
it does not require the whole of goonswarm federation to contest someone else's sov we send EUTZ to go wreck nerds and leave USTZ home to defend easy peasy Yeah, they definitely need to scale primetimes with sov size... 24hrs primetime if you hold over 3 regions sounds fine to me no problem, we just break into multiple holding alliances and shift pilots around as they are needed to defend Force Sov bonuses to only apply to current members of the holding alliance = holding alliances are useless for actually using the space unless you're a member of that holding alliance. Add a week delay to using entosis links after jumping alliance = can't just jump around your pvpers from alliance to alliance as needed. Make Sov bonuses only apply during your primetime period = US tz players won't be able to use EU tz alliances sov effectively (edit: unless they extend the primetime period to cover both groups.) Keep dancing. unfortunately, sov bonuses just don't work like that
sov bonuses spawn anoms, grav sites, hacking mini-games, wormholes (lol), and DED complexes
none of these things can be restricted to one alliance or can even really be restricted to the alliance's prime time
the only thing on the list that can be is cyno beacons, which, surprise surprise, already work like this
also entosis link ships can be farmed out to alts |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1621
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:21:31 -
[2546] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:
100's near thousands of post about afk cloaky camping, and ccp refuses to acknowledge that its a problem
That's because it's not a problem except for the weak, lazy and un-creative. What I tell afk cloakers: [Typhoon, F YOU AFKguy] Internal Force Field Array I 'Repose' Core Compensation 'Repose' Core Compensation 'Repose' Core Compensation Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Drone Damage Amplifier II Large Micro Jump Drive Target Spectrum Breaker Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 'Copasetic' Particle Field Acceleration Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Large Capacitor Control Circuit I Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Curator II x4 Hornet EC-300 x5
That does not shoot far enough especially if the target move withing it's large "sapce tag" allowed range.
EDIT : My bad, missread the meaning of the quoted post.
But still, it shows how the 250km range on that link is ********. |
Tashan Kettiko
Easy Company Logistic Command
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:24:27 -
[2547] - Quote
Begin training my Enthosis alt now for Tank-y station systems counter ship. |
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:25:28 -
[2548] - Quote
TarPalantir I wrote: 1. The risk/resources/benefit structure is very heavily tilted in favor of the attacker. It doesn't mean the attacker will always win, just that the attacker can put forth minimal effort and resources - low risk - and cause massive problems/grief for the defender.
2. Properly executed Blitzkrieg attacks even between = number alliances can result in the defender looking at losing most/all of their Sov in a 3 day time span based on about 6-7 hours of game play.
Have you ever thought about retribution? If an alliance starts this sort of harassment, they will have to endure the same thing!
All those examples, about ceptor fleets griefing the hell out of everyone, completely ignore the fact, that as a defender you can easily threaten the attacker in just the same way. So it all boils down to mutually assured perma-harassment...?
Maybe... but only, as long as you are stretched out thin. As soon as you have like two dozens of people in every system you own, the problem goes away.
Plus an intelligent defender could easily have the lone ceptor griefer try and grief for half an hour (remember those 10 minutes are just for empty systems... everything that is even remotely inhabitet will fall somewhere between 10 and 40 min), only to come in at the last three minutes, activate your own E-link, and either blab him or chase him off.
Every half-decent occupied system will take a while to conquer and sitting around alone for 20-40 minutes, hoping that the defender will not show up at the last minute, is no fun, but a cruel mind game for the attacker as well. After all its the attackers time commitment as well. Roaming around, waiting 20 minutes, being chased off or sniped off last minute and repeat; for 4h+... ? Who in their right mind, would wanna do that on a regular basis??? That's even worse than structure grinding, cause you don't even have any sense of community or any firepower to deal with defenders...
Oh and don't forget, that the defender with take back any progress you made in 12-15 minutes max, even if you needed 30+ minutes to get there... My guess is, that something like an "emergency Drake" (all mids, lows, and rigs fitted for brick tank and RMLs + T1 E-link on top) will emerge; a sturdy, cheap fit that can hold up a large swarm of pilots solo. Harassment is only long term effective, as long as it is asymmetrical in all aspects, which it isn't; time commitment is in favor of the defender.
My bet is, that after a few tries, people on both sides will get tired of meaningless games of cat-and-mouse and will choose to upgrade to bigger ships and small gangs who can actually stay, fight and get something done. |
Rex Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:28:59 -
[2549] - Quote
Thoirdhealbhach wrote:TarPalantir I wrote: 1. The risk/resources/benefit structure is very heavily tilted in favor of the attacker. It doesn't mean the attacker will always win, just that the attacker can put forth minimal effort and resources - low risk - and cause massive problems/grief for the defender.
2. Properly executed Blitzkrieg attacks even between = number alliances can result in the defender looking at losing most/all of their Sov in a 3 day time span based on about 6-7 hours of game play.
Have you ever thought about retribution? If an alliance starts this sort of harassment, they will have to endure the same thing! All those examples, about ceptor fleets griefing the hell out of everyone, completely ignore the fact, that as a defender you can easily threaten the attacker in just the same way. So it all boils down to mutually assured perma-harassment...? Maybe... but only, as long as you are stretched out thin. As soon as you have like two dozens of people in every system you own, the problem goes away. Plus an intelligent defender could easily have the lone ceptor griefer try and grief for half an hour (remember those 10 minutes are just for empty systems... everything that is even remotely inhabitet will fall somewhere between 10 and 40 min), only to come in at the last three minutes, activate your own E-link, and either blab him or chase him off. Every half-decent occupied system will take a while to conquer and sitting around alone for 20-40 minutes, hoping that the defender will not show up at the last minute, is no fun, but a cruel mind game for the attacker as well. After all its the attackers time commitment as well. Roaming around, waiting 20 minutes, being chased off or sniped off last minute and repeat; for 4h+... ? Who in their right mind, would wanna do that on a regular basis??? That's even worse than structure grinding, cause you don't even have any sense of community or any firepower to deal with defenders... Oh and don't forget, that the defender with take back any progress you made in 12-15 minutes max, even if you needed 30+ minutes to get there... My guess is, that something like an "emergency Drake" (all mids, lows, and rigs fitted for brick tank and RMLs + T1 E-link on top) will emerge; a sturdy, cheap fit that can hold up a large swarm of pilots solo. Harassment is only long term effective, as long as it is asymmetrical in all aspects, which it isn't; time commitment is in favor of the defender. My bet is, that after a few tries, people on both sides will get tired of meaningless games of cat-and-mouse and will choose to upgrade to bigger ships and small gangs who can actually stay, fight and get something done.
I hope there will a dedicated in game RSS feed for alliance link attacks, with timers and everything so people can keep track which systemsbget priority with defence and stuff.
|
MajorScrewup
Thundercats The Initiative.
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:29:48 -
[2550] - Quote
Just some quick thoughts I had on increasing space residency.
Sov needs to be made more valuable at some point to make it worth fighting over and to fill null-sec with more people using the space. Most regions in null-sec currently have 8-10 systems at most where people use the best security systems for ratting. A new system should be introduced where the value of all systems should be worth upgrading but also with a sliding scale valuing these true security systems.
[All values used are simply there to show a way to increase value to all systems].
I propose a new system where each system can be upgradeable but persists in a cyclic system. Better true security systems rotating through the cycle in less times but still not making it better value to simply stay in these systems under the present system. A cycle would compose of the normal system npcs and their bounties, but as occupancy combined with npc kills increases, so does the value of the npc bounties and their quantity.
Cycle 0 would be the value of an unclaimed system and result in the npcs in the present system. Cycle 1 would give npcs with bounties 20% higher and at an accelerated rate of spawn and be the start of the cycle. Cycle 5 would be generated from destruction of so many npcs and result in npcs that have bounties twice the current value with double the spawns. At the end of occupancy 5 where enough npcs have been killed a npc with a value of ~10m would spawn and destroying it would signal that the end of increased value npc waves has finished for this cycle. (In lore this could be explained as the npcs amassing again). It could even be made that this npc dropped a bpc for the new entosis module, tying together PvE and PvP.
The cycle length of this system returning to high value npcs would be between 4-8 days depending on the tru-sec of the system. This would give the players a reason to move onto a new system in their space to get better bounties and also they will have increased their defense of this system against outside PvP attack under the new system.
The same system would be applied to mining, but with ores that gave an increased yield when refined from 20% to 100% depending on the level of the cycle.
Occupancy would be used to determine the minimum lenght of Prime Time on a system:
Occupancy 5 - 4 hour window Occupancy 4 - 6 hour window Occupancy 3 - 8 hour window Occupancy 2 - 12 hour window Occupancy 1 - 18 hour window Occupancy 0 - 24 hour window
Occupancy would be determined by military and industrial levels as proposed, but adding in all the factors of a system.
Example would be that military uses the numbers of npc killed, pvp kills, POS, pilots in space, and other activity in this envelope. Industrial would use any mining activity, including moon mining, all manufacturing jobs, and other relevant activities.
Military 5 and industry 5 would have the same benefits as before in system with, but the cyclic role of npcs and ore in a system should encourage greater use of other lower security systems and a better reason to build up the defensive level of these systems.
The time to get each systems defensive value up to a maximum value should reflect the ability of the holders to use the system and they should lose systems and create more space holders. They will either have to lose systems that they do not use which is a good thing as it encourages new residents to move in and utilise this space; or recruit people to use these systems that they have no time to use.
With more people in space and using all aspects of the space, null sec dwellers would be able to reduce reliance on hi-sec even more. More PvP will be had as there is now a target rich environment which will hopefully result in more small scale roaming benefiting both the PvP orientated residents and outsiders of the region to come roam into.
I also propose a separate thread for the Entosis discussion. |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10073
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:30:17 -
[2551] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Its actually better for us if the people who we want to greif time away from our chosen Prime, since the guys having to play "defender" wont be strung out also by going on the offense, instead you'll have our fresh other timezones with literally nothing better to do.
lulz
See everytime something someting changes in the game and null residents raise issues about it, "others" (mainly high sec types) rush in and proclaim how the 'tears are delicious'. What they NEVER seem to understand is that null residents are adapters, no matter what CCP throws at them, they fine a way to keep on truckin. What really happens though, is that in some way, the people who were celebrating 'tears' end up being the only people who end up suffering from whatever change is being discussed.
It's happening here (well, in general discussion anyways), people are proclaiming how this will be great for the game and the goons/N3/bi guys are gonna suffer and the coalations will collapse and the 'little guy' will have a chance. What they don't (and never) see coming is that the big groups will survive and find a way to profit, the little guys will still be sad and the high sec people celebrating will not be subject to BORED GOONS who don't have to be in null because their alliances prime time is in another Time Zones....which means even more ganking and tomfoolery
Tears aren't the things that are delicious. The thing that is delicious is IRONY. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
209
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:30:30 -
[2552] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Elenahina wrote: 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.
Null is kind of supposed to be the end game, where dose people who have played this game for so long have to go to get away from the frigate game. SP should acually count for something, CCPs idea that newbro should be able to take sov is backwards. If you want to fly small gang pvp go do FW not null sec. Don't you dare hate on the newbros in frigates. They're awesome. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
238
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:31:40 -
[2553] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:unfortunately, sov bonuses just don't work like that
sov bonuses spawn anoms, grav sites, hacking mini-games, wormholes (lol), and DED complexes
none of these things can be restricted to one alliance or can even really be restricted to the alliance's prime time
the only thing on the list that can be is cyno beacons, which, surprise surprise, already work like this
also entosis link ships can be farmed out to alts Correct, CURRENT sov bonuses don't work like that. We have no idea what the new ones will be like though. They're rejigging the whole of nullsec remember, this is just phase 2.
Some possibilities that could pertain only to controlling sov members:
- Increased mining efficiency during prime time - Higher bounties during primetime - could even have the opposite of incursion penalties; better resists and damage projection. - Active gate/station guns that only defend members of the sov holding group - Improved research/manufacturing efficiency for jobs started within primetime - Hacking efficiency improved during primetime
And also in general: - Jump bridges only active during primetime - Cyno jammers only active during primetime
Keep yourself to a small 4 hour window if that's all you require but for a large multinational alliance, you're probably gonna want to extend your primetime willingly if changes like this were implemented.
edit: ooooooooh also. No local outside of primetime (lulz) |
Davader
Space Cleaners The Gorgon Empire
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:33:39 -
[2554] - Quote
On the "Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two":
Awesome changes, very interesting solution. Looking for the final implementation! |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10073
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:36:02 -
[2555] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:
100's near thousands of post about afk cloaky camping, and ccp refuses to acknowledge that its a problem
That's because it's not a problem except for the weak, lazy and un-creative. What I tell afk cloakers: [Typhoon, F YOU AFKguy] Internal Force Field Array I 'Repose' Core Compensation 'Repose' Core Compensation 'Repose' Core Compensation Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Drone Damage Amplifier II Large Micro Jump Drive Target Spectrum Breaker Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 'Copasetic' Particle Field Acceleration Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Large Capacitor Control Circuit I Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Curator II x4 Hornet EC-300 x5 That does not shoot far enough especially if the target move withing it's large "sapce tag" allowed range. EDIT : My bad, missread the meaning of the quoted post. But still, it shows how the 250km range on that link is ********. You misunderstand. This isn't about the new system. That is the ship I use to continue ratting when the afk cloakers camp in my system, the same afk cloakers that the Milla Goodpussys of the world think are such a disastrous problem that requires CCP intervention. Some people even claim that 'afk cloakers make people leave the game'.
It's all nonsense. Cloakers (afk or otherwise) are only a problem for people who couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag and everytime someone proclaims them to be a problem, I trot out one of my "F the afk cloaker' fits to educate them. I consider it a public service
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
39
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:37:27 -
[2556] - Quote
I don't understand why the fitting requirements for this high slot link thing was not revealed in the dev blog. If it turns out it is not possible to fit on anything smaller than a cruiser, it would have saved about 50 pages of posts in this thread. |
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1028
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:42:20 -
[2557] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:I don't understand why the fitting requirements for this high slot link thing was not revealed in the dev blog. If it turns out it is not possible to fit on anything smaller than a cruiser, it would have saved about 50 pages of posts in this thread.
Yeah, but would we really be the same without those 50 pages?
EDIT: And I'm hoping that even with it's "low fitting requirement", it's still enough to effectively gimp a frigate fit to doing nothing but hacking the structure.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
6126
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:42:50 -
[2558] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:I don't understand why the fitting requirements for this high slot link thing was not revealed in the dev blog. If it turns out it is not possible to fit on anything smaller than a cruiser, it would have saved about 50 pages of posts in this thread. Probably because they couldn't decide where they want to put it and just put it out there for the feedback to fret about it to see where public opinion goes. Personally, I'd make it a command link. Then again, I had a entirely different system for sovereignty in mind, so what does my opinion matter.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:43:33 -
[2559] - Quote
flakeys wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Leaving grid even if your ship gets killed does not restore the shield back to 100%. You can come back just a few minutes later and continue from relatively the same point unless the POS owner repped it up.
If I am shooting at a pos and I get blapped, if I do not return the pos will regenerate it's own shields over time. I would expect nothing less from the successor mechanic. Only the timeframe is really changing. So up to a few hours depending how long my link was active to represent how long I was shooting at a POS? The real way to prevent most of the trolling isn't to make the timer reset but to make the trolling harder to do. The 250km range on the T2 module is absurd. Why didn't they just make the T2 version's range just double from T2 or hell quadruple if you really must? No instead they introduced a module with 10 time the effective range. No wonder people are theorycrafting an epic amount of trolling with SOV when you can do it from the very limit of any targetting systems and also potentially be fitted to the most mobile kind of ships and people wonder why we might end up playing space tag... Would be fun if they introduced this to FW though , hangin at 250km of the beacon
Those of us in FW would know how to eeasily counter this. =ƒÿÅ |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
209
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:43:58 -
[2560] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?
it does not require the whole of goonswarm federation to contest someone else's sov we send EUTZ to go wreck nerds and leave USTZ home to defend easy peasy Actually we can take turns on it as well. One month EU wrecks **** while US defends, the next month US wrecks **** while EU defends, that way everyone gets a periodic vacation. |
|
Newbie nTraining
Vesuvius' Flame
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:44:03 -
[2561] - Quote
While I really don't care for any of these changes people will learn to adapt and get used to the play style. If these changes do go forward here are my thoughts:
*Prime Time - Worst idea I've heard of. What makes this game unique is that it's going 23/7 and you need to be prepared for anything at anytime. A suggestion would be to allow the structures to be initially attacked at any time but then allow defenders to adjust reinforced timers +/- a couple of hours. This would need to be done in a vulnerable state (i.e. hauler bringing strontium to change the timer should be vulnerable and not able to hide behind any shields; mechanic could work for POSes as well as sov structures) forcing attackers to actually keep better watch of their targets during reinforce. Another great piece of this game is having alliance mates worldwide. Creating an alliance Prime Time will push people to joining alliances in their Prime Time.
*250km range of the tech 2 module - WAAAAYYYY too far out. As many people have stated this is going to turn into interceptor warfare or cloaky-nulli tactical cruisers. This will just turn into attackers way out of range and a defender coming in to the sov structure to defend, therefore no true PVP interaction and we are falling asleep in the grind. Bring this in to something that will provide a decent orbit yet still promote the potential for PVP, say 50km-75km max. |
Marc Callan
Lucifer's Hammer A Band Apart.
498
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:47:05 -
[2562] - Quote
Question from left field (I tried searching the thread but came up empty).
If a station goes into freeport mode under this new system, what will happen to repair services? One quirk I recall from my times in null is that station owners can set in-station repair costs, and often those are set to zero for people with docking permission. Will that be reset to standard rates, or locked in at the pre-freeport level?
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
- Kurt Vonnegurt
|
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising The Bastion
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:53:30 -
[2563] - Quote
It seems that the majority of the problems related to the entosis link I'm reading here could be alleviated by making three changes to it.
A) structures being captured will have an 'uncapture' timer associated while an enemy entosis link is not active on it. In other words if an enemy captures a structure to say 50% but then is forced to leave. the structure will slowly undo what the attackers have done until it is back to full strength. (say 30min as just an example) this could then be sped up by the defender using an entosis link but it at least gives reason for the attacker to need to return if they do not want to lose the ground they gained and simply swapping around structures in a system would not have nearly the benefit it does in the current proposed idea.
B) make the entosis link unavailable to interceptors. frigates are still fine because warp bubbles will completely disrupt an attackers ability to literally troll an defender into submission. It is the warp bubble immunity and speed associated with them that is the main problem with the entosis link.
c) reduce the range of the t2 down to 100km. This would still give more than enough orbit range to keep ship (defense fleet) speed up while allowing defenders to actually be able to shoot them. 250km is just ridiculous as that pushes the total bubble of influence to 500 km in diameter! I'm all for bringing back a reason to have fast ships but that's a little absurd. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
180
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:57:39 -
[2564] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Elenahina wrote: 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.
Null is kind of supposed to be the end game, where dose people who have played this game for so long have to go to get away from the frigate game. SP should acually count for something, CCPs idea that newbro should be able to take sov is backwards. If you want to fly small gang pvp go do FW not null sec. Don't you dare hate on the newbros in frigates. They're awesome.
Some people forget that we were all newbros in frigates once. Some newbro right now is the next DBRB or baltec1 - never forget that.
Also our entire corp is sort of built around nullsec PvP on the presupposiion that if you're in nullsec, you're prepared for PvP. If you're not, you'll probably wind up on our kill board at some point.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
VALL3R1A
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:58:42 -
[2565] - Quote
I have a question
what going to happen when we need to get the military level up in a system and the true sec suck and you have to rat is **** system.
will be a way to change the true sec of a system if we use it. If not what's the reason for ratting? and what are bored system no one will ever rat because of the high traffic. You know no one going to mining in a system next to possible enemy. is there any way that we can add pvp kill into the system. I talking about the reinforce time. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
239
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:59:07 -
[2566] - Quote
Sullen Decimus wrote:It seems that the majority of the problems related to the entosis link I'm reading here could be alleviated by making three changes to it.
A) structures being captured will have an 'uncapture' timer associated while an enemy entosis link is not active on it. In other words if an enemy captures a structure to say 50% but then is forced to leave. the structure will slowly undo what the attackers have done until it is back to full strength. (say 30min as just an example) this could then be sped up by the defender using an entosis link but it at least gives reason for the attacker to need to return if they do not want to lose the ground they gained and simply swapping around structures in a system would not have nearly the benefit it does in the current proposed idea. Agree, a slow tick down slightly forces a bit more commitment from the attackers.
Sullen Decimus wrote:B) make the entosis link unavailable to interceptors. frigates are still fine because warp bubbles will completely disrupt an attackers ability to literally troll an defender into submission. It is the warp bubble immunity and speed associated with them that is the main problem with the entosis link. Strongly disagree (in case you can't tell lol). This would enable gate camps and border control to keep empty systems protected behind an active defensive perimeter.
Sullen Decimus wrote:c) reduce the range of the t2 down to 100km. This would still give more than enough orbit range to keep ship (defense fleet) speed up while allowing defenders to actually be able to shoot them. 250km is just ridiculous as that pushes the total bubble of influence to 500 km in diameter! I'm all for bringing back a reason to have fast ships but that's a little absurd. I think this is really being overstated. Gimpfit inties with absolutely nothing else can just about be made to lock out this far - there's already a mechanical limitation on each hull by it's base stats and fitting choices.
|
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:59:34 -
[2567] - Quote
Newbie nTraining wrote: *250km range of the tech 2 module - WAAAAYYYY too far out. As many people have stated this is going to turn into interceptor warfare or cloaky-nulli tactical cruisers. This will just turn into attackers way out of range and a defender coming in to the sov structure to defend, therefore no true PVP interaction and we are falling asleep in the grind. Bring this in to something that will provide a decent orbit yet still promote the potential for PVP, say 50km-75km max.
250km is just the nominal range of the weapon system, you still need a target lock. If you fit a ceptor for maximum lock range it will have the resilience of an air balloon and the lock range will still be closer to 150km than 250km btw. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:59:36 -
[2568] - Quote
For the start, restrict the Entosis Link from being fit on frigates, destroyers, T3 cruisers, covert ops cloaking ships and capital ships. This allows everyone to monitor the progress and allow CCP to tweak it if it is not having the effect they want. Place restrictions on module combinations as well. For example no cloak and Entosis Link fit at the same time.
Let's see where the meta falls after that and then make adjustments as needed. |
Josef Djugashvilis
2904
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:00:10 -
[2569] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Its actually better for us if the people who we want to greif time away from our chosen Prime, since the guys having to play "defender" wont be strung out also by going on the offense, instead you'll have our fresh other timezones with literally nothing better to do. lulz See everytime something someting changes in the game and null residents raise issues about it, "others" (mainly high sec types) rush in and proclaim how the 'tears are delicious'. What they NEVER seem to understand is that null residents are adapters, no matter what CCP throws at them, they fine a way to keep on truckin. What really happens though, is that in some way, the people who were celebrating 'tears' end up being the only people who end up suffering from whatever change is being discussed. It's happening here (well, in general discussion anyways), people are proclaiming how this will be great for the game and the goons/N3/bi guys are gonna suffer and the coalations will collapse and the 'little guy' will have a chance. What they don't (and never) see coming is that the big groups will survive and find a way to profit, the little guys will still be sad and the high sec people celebrating will not be subject to BORED GOONS who don't have to be in null because their alliances prime time is in another Time Zones....which means even more ganking and tomfoolery Tears aren't the things that are delicious. The thing that is delicious is IRONY.
Well played Jenn!
An entire thread about null-sec and you still manage to whinge about hi-sec.
That takes some mind set to do
This is not a signature.
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
122
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:00:18 -
[2570] - Quote
Just a thought to reduce the small-gang and individual griefing aspect this form of sov mechanic will induce:
Attacks on TCU's are able to be countered by anchoring them near a POS. Enough guns will ward off the single or small gang. It should also be worth considering allowing Ihubs to be anchored near a POS as well.
I'm not really worried about this proposed sov mechanic with regard to organized groups who have a real intent to lay siege and take sov. But this mechanic, as proposed, will likely result in a massive uptick in annoyance as defenders respond to phantoms just running around and ringing doorbells. Maybe some fights or ganks or whatever you want to call PVP will result, but without a doubt it will also lead to abuses of the mechanic simply to cause the annoyance of forcing a defender to respond to false alarms. We already experience that with POS's. There is no need to expand it to sovereignty-related structures.
What may sound good on paper as a means of conducting legitimate sovwar will result in far more instances of players who just want to be dicks. Therefore, allow POS's to be used as a means to counter these kinds of fake attacks. |
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
239
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:12:12 -
[2571] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Just a thought to reduce the small-gang and individual griefing aspect this form of sov mechanic will induce:
Attacks on TCU's are able to be countered by anchoring them near a POS. Enough guns will ward off the single or small gang. It should also be worth considering allowing Ihubs to be anchored near a POS as well.
I'm not really worried about this proposed sov mechanic with regard to organized groups who have a real intent to lay siege and take sov. But this mechanic, as proposed, will likely result in a massive uptick in annoyance as defenders respond to phantoms just running around and ringing doorbells. Maybe some fights or ganks or whatever you want to call PVP will result, but without a doubt it will also lead to abuses of the mechanic simply to cause the annoyance of forcing a defender to respond to false alarms. We already experience that with POS's. There is no need to expand it to sovereignty-related structures.
What may sound good on paper as a means of conducting legitimate sovwar will result in far more instances of players who just want to be dicks. Therefore, allow POS's to be used as a means to counter these kinds of fake attacks. Kinda works, kinda doesn't... now you're forcing them to bring something that can deal with a POS either in terms of tanking it for upto 40 minutes (without RR) or first killing the POS and then capping the point...which is back to n+1 capital warfare again. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6353
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:14:02 -
[2572] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Arrendis wrote:Dracvlad wrote:You are assuming that people don't know what the Goons are like, we do, which is why the first step is to plant a TCU next to a POS and troll you back, we know you don't want to hold that sov. And as the siphons proved you do get bored, and of course many people will be doing it to you, so many people from hisec could for example get into an interceptor and do this to get back at you, many won't but some might.
EDIT: And for good measure I don't ever expect to be able to put an IHUB in, but that is not the point is it... Well, putting the ihub in is what's going to make your space reasonably profitable. You might also want a station at some point. And see, you're looking at Goons. I wasn't. I'm looking at all of us. You think Pizza's going to not hit everyone they can with this? You think Black Legion won't? Or PL? You think Massadeth's gonna just mess with the CFC? Or that the Southeast won't be a wretched patchwork of N3 and the Russians trying to harass one another now that the supercapital blobs won't stop RUS? We are not nice people. And honestly, we don't much care who we're not nice to. The IHUB is what will be attacked and that is the weak spot in this change, I would advise CCP to make it so that the affects only get removed when it is destroyed. For things that rely on an IHUB I would have the Jump bridge require a IHUB in system for it to be anchored and onlined thats all. In terms of Super or Titan production the IHUB enables you to start a job, but if its removed once you started no issue. Then trolling becomes less of an issue, its the tweaks that really matter here. I do of course recognise all the other entities that like having fun, you are not the only ones, but if you come to troll and only find a TCU next to a death star who is trolling who?
Am I seeing this right? Is this an actual complaint about nullsec PVP? People playing the game?
Quote:And see, you're looking at Goons. I wasn't. I'm looking at all of us. You think Pizza's going to not hit everyone they can with this? You think Black Legion won't? Or PL? You think Massadeth's gonna just mess with the CFC? Or that the Southeast won't be a wretched patchwork of N3 and the Russians trying to harass one another now that the supercapital blobs won't stop RUS?
Is this what nullsec has become? I would expect such a complaint about highsec - yet the large nullsec blocks now make a sport of coming to highsec to gank freighters and mission boats, if not rake in the ISK with incursions.
Look at how entrenched, and fat on their dotage (like Smaug) over piles of moon goo and ISK from anoms they have become.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing
1646
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:16:46 -
[2573] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Just a thought to reduce the small-gang and individual griefing aspect this form of sov mechanic will induce:
Attacks on TCU's are able to be countered by anchoring them near a POS. Enough guns will ward off the single or small gang. It should also be worth considering allowing Ihubs to be anchored near a POS as well.
I'm not really worried about this proposed sov mechanic with regard to organized groups who have a real intent to lay siege and take sov. But this mechanic, as proposed, will likely result in a massive uptick in annoyance as defenders respond to phantoms just running around and ringing doorbells. Maybe some fights or ganks or whatever you want to call PVP will result, but without a doubt it will also lead to abuses of the mechanic simply to cause the annoyance of forcing a defender to respond to false alarms. We already experience that with POS's. There is no need to expand it to sovereignty-related structures.
What may sound good on paper as a means of conducting legitimate sovwar will result in far more instances of players who just want to be dicks. Therefore, allow POS's to be used as a means to counter these kinds of fake attacks.
No to pos sov defense, too many guns for zero person showing up for defense. Give entosis same effects as cyno - it locks you down and puts a beacon on you. If system is occupied, someone will get a free kill, working as intended. If system is empty, you just soloed a sov system, working as intended. |
Corey Lean
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:17:30 -
[2574] - Quote
My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1126
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:19:31 -
[2575] - Quote
Here is some thoughts on addressing income.
1) make moongoo mineable by the players, and not a pos. reclassify the rorqual to a active moon mining ship. So the rorqual can moo mine and boost a fleet and miners can mine. Subsequently, price could drop on these.
basicaly make active hunting out of moon miners. Also gives people the option to do moon mining in total.
A few items to add regarding this
The rorqual cannot be in a pos and moon mine.
The rorqual cannot mine on a moon that has a pos present (so pos dumping is a strategy to stop miners). Yes you can grief with it, but you'd have to bring a hauler just to dump one.
Allow players to hack dead sticks to unanchor them (avoids dead sticking).
The rorqual industrial core should provide bonuses to moon mining and resistances to survive a assault on the rorqual (think of it as mega tank mode). The industrial mode should also protect the rorqual from ewar (same as siege or triage). This gives a lowsec rorqual some protection from being tackled by a subcap, and in some respects makes people require a hictor. The other option is to give the rorqual a flat out ewar immunity that supers have. I would also add dscan immunity to the rorqual also for less "I just found you by dscan move".
What this does is put industrial and miners on the same level of the entire pvp player base. You need them to mine, they need you for protection.
This does a few things. Pos fuel for mining pos is no more. Players have to actively mine. Defense fleets matter. Your location matters even more because you must have people to actively mine moons and pay attention to do it.
This does murder corporation and alliance funds for large and enormous groups. This also gives individual players a way to supplement their income by doing a mining process.
Obviously speed up how much a rorqual mines moons.
I would supplement what the rorqual does with what the orca could do. Basically allow the orca to compress minerals and ore and ice without the need for the mining pos item. Obviously you can still have it and use it if you want. Also I would allow moongoo to be stored in a orca's ore bay for transport.
siphons for moongoo is basically broken and could be removed if this change was considered.
The only reason I bring this is up is because people keep talking about anomaly ratting as the only income. I think the ultimate income should also just be put directly into the players hands. As this is a Sov revamp, the fight for the most valuable part of it also needs a revamp.
Yaay!!!!
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
124
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:21:52 -
[2576] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Just a thought to reduce the small-gang and individual griefing aspect this form of sov mechanic will induce:
Attacks on TCU's are able to be countered by anchoring them near a POS. Enough guns will ward off the single or small gang. It should also be worth considering allowing Ihubs to be anchored near a POS as well.
I'm not really worried about this proposed sov mechanic with regard to organized groups who have a real intent to lay siege and take sov. But this mechanic, as proposed, will likely result in a massive uptick in annoyance as defenders respond to phantoms just running around and ringing doorbells. Maybe some fights or ganks or whatever you want to call PVP will result, but without a doubt it will also lead to abuses of the mechanic simply to cause the annoyance of forcing a defender to respond to false alarms. We already experience that with POS's. There is no need to expand it to sovereignty-related structures.
What may sound good on paper as a means of conducting legitimate sovwar will result in far more instances of players who just want to be dicks. Therefore, allow POS's to be used as a means to counter these kinds of fake attacks. Kinda works, kinda doesn't... now you're forcing them to bring something that can deal with a POS either in terms of tanking it for upto 40 minutes (without RR) or first killing the POS and then capping the point...which is back to n+1 capital warfare again.
Well if the goal is to allow any single pilot to ring the doorbell or even reinforce a structure in 40 minutes, then I guess there is no way around the fact that it will get abused on a grand scale. Sovereignty warfare is not, nor should it be, the domain of any individual pilot to accomplish. If you can't get past a POS then you probably shouldn't be trying to get into the sovwar game. That's just my opinion of course, and I will await to see the abuse that results from thinking that it should be. Because if any single pilot has the capability of doing so, then thousands will organize just to show just how broken that mechanic truly is. |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
125
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:22:10 -
[2577] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:
100's near thousands of post about afk cloaky camping, and ccp refuses to acknowledge that its a problem
That's because it's not a problem except for the weak, lazy and un-creative. What I tell afk cloakers: [Typhoon, F YOU AFKguy] Internal Force Field Array I 'Repose' Core Compensation 'Repose' Core Compensation 'Repose' Core Compensation Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Drone Damage Amplifier II Large Micro Jump Drive Target Spectrum Breaker Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 'Copasetic' Particle Field Acceleration Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Large Capacitor Control Circuit I Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Curator II x4 Hornet EC-300 x5
So you prefer to give up expensive ships? Which system are you in?
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:23:55 -
[2578] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:125 pages, 2 CSM posts. This shows how little your vote matters. If it had to be any more obvious.
125 pages, 2 CCP posts. This shows how little CCP is concerned.
Logic is overestimated. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10076
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:25:37 -
[2579] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Here is some thoughts on addressing income.
1) make moongoo mineable by the players, and not a pos.
I love that idea. There is the 'bottom up alliance income' CCP keeps talking about we need. And I agree.
As far as the income structure/mechanic in null, I'll just copy and paste Mr Megathron himself from another thread:
baltec1 wrote:
Combat anoms don't work.
You cannot support a small corp in a system let alone an alliance of our size on the current anoms. If CCP want us to shrink our empires then they have to get rid of the need to hold vast areas of space. Moving to a mission style setup would allow us to fit several hundred to a system as opposed to todays max of 10
Another issue is to do with the way we earn isk in null. The bulk of the income from anoms comes in the form of bounties which is a rather big problem. There is roughly twice as much isk entering the economy than leaving it which has lead to isk buying you less than it used to (Carriers for example have doubled in cost over the last decade). This means that mission income has risen over the years due to the fact that most of their reward comes in the form of LP. Anom income has been fixed in place due to bounties while mission rewards have effectively risen which has resulted in missions overtaking anoms in reward.
We need a new way of earning isk in null, anoms simply don't work in the long run.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10076
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:26:59 -
[2580] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:
100's near thousands of post about afk cloaky camping, and ccp refuses to acknowledge that its a problem
That's because it's not a problem except for the weak, lazy and un-creative. What I tell afk cloakers: [Typhoon, F YOU AFKguy] Internal Force Field Array I 'Repose' Core Compensation 'Repose' Core Compensation 'Repose' Core Compensation Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Drone Damage Amplifier II Large Micro Jump Drive Target Spectrum Breaker Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 'Copasetic' Particle Field Acceleration Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Large Capacitor Control Circuit I Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Curator II x4 Hornet EC-300 x5 So you prefer to give up expensive ships? Which system are you in?
What do you mean give up expensive ships? What you just posted makes no sense (and as far as ratting ships go, my anti-afk phoon is dirt cheap, less than an afktar).
Oh and besides, if ( between an MJD, target breaker, warp core stabs, a heavy neut and ECM drones) you can't escape a cloaker that decloaks for a hot drop, you deserve to die. |
|
Senyu Takashi
NGC research and development Imperium of Rising Luna
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:31:49 -
[2581] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Here is some thoughts on addressing income.
1) make moongoo mineable by the players, and not a pos. I love that idea. There is the 'bottom up alliance income' CCP keeps talking about we need. And I agree. As far as the income structure/mechanic in null, I'll just copy and paste Mr Megathron himself from another thread: baltec1 wrote:
Combat anoms don't work.
You cannot support a small corp in a system let alone an alliance of our size on the current anoms. If CCP want us to shrink our empires then they have to get rid of the need to hold vast areas of space. Moving to a mission style setup would allow us to fit several hundred to a system as opposed to todays max of 10
Another issue is to do with the way we earn isk in null. The bulk of the income from anoms comes in the form of bounties which is a rather big problem. There is roughly twice as much isk entering the economy than leaving it which has lead to isk buying you less than it used to (Carriers for example have doubled in cost over the last decade). This means that mission income has risen over the years due to the fact that most of their reward comes in the form of LP. Anom income has been fixed in place due to bounties while mission rewards have effectively risen which has resulted in missions overtaking anoms in reward.
We need a new way of earning isk in null, anoms simply don't work in the long run.
Minig belts? Making stuff and selling it on trade hubs? Allow line members and smaller corps in your alliance to own reaction POSes? How about industry, invention and ancient relic invention(since slots are gone there shouldnt be a problem with "not enough stations")? Maybe allowing neuts to dock in your stations and trade with you instead of just exporting moon goo?
You know, red crosses arent the only source of income in this game.
|
El'Grimm
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:34:39 -
[2582] - Quote
If its not ceptors it will be something else if trolling is going to be so easy. If trolling is in any way feasible with this new system holding sov is going to be a 28 hours per week job, no matter how small or big your space is.
28 hours per week being trolled, I might as well just watch jita local instead, responding to troll pings is NOT going to be engaging game-play for anyone other than the trolls, and if they are the only ones having fun, they will be the only ones playing.
Drop the e-wand price, keep the low fitting reqs, but limit to BC or bigger hulls.
If these mystical new bros who want sov cant even scrape together a few t1 BC hulls, then they definitely cant do anything else that relates to sov, like living in it, making it even approach being worth while.
And please just stop referencing the 40 min timer, its so insanely hard to achieve that 5/5/5 index that its irrelevant even talking about it, let alone claiming that occupancy as it stands in this proposed system is good, it is a laughable bonus.
I reckon average index bonus will turn the 10 minutes, into 15-25 mins average, thats why the flood of cheap fast troll ships (whatever they are) being able to ping every timer is going to make defending so awkward. To be able to get to every timer effectively means a defenders space will need to be so small, that the small space wont be able to sustain isk wise the number of defenders needed until the area covered is so small that ANY large force will just roflstomp them. I just see the whole equation untenable.
Large alliances will have to have large amounts of space, to be able to support there players, thus flood attacks will just troll them relentlessly. Small alliances are still going to be at the absolute mercy of any alliance even slightly bigger than them, or shock horror to the new guys, better skilled or better equipped. |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
125
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:34:49 -
[2583] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:What do you mean give up expensive ships? What you just posted makes no sense (and as far as ratting ships go, my anti-afk phoon is dirt cheap, less than an afktar).
Oh and besides, if, between an MJD, target breaker, warp core stabs, a heavy neut and ECM drones you can't escape a cloaker that decloaks for a hot drop, you deserve to die.
A hotdrop will kill you so easily they won't even have time to laugh at you. And efficiency of that fit is on par with... I dunno, the only thing that bad... I don't know anything that bad, actually. I mean, you can get something with THAT (in)efficiency for at most 1/7 of your hull price. Which is why that whole idea is looking like stupid and dumb already.
Also, fit me an anti-afk barge. You know, the thing you can't keep indy rating without. And don't wink at the mining frigs, they suck. Barges suck as well, but less.
I don't mind how many less-than-bright people can't acknowledge it, but AFK cloaking is the problem, and it's going to be 20x more of a problem in this system.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1580
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:35:40 -
[2584] - Quote
Cleanse Serce wrote:Abrazzar wrote:125 pages, 2 CSM posts. This shows how little your vote matters. If it had to be any more obvious. 125 pages, 2 CCP posts. This shows how little CCP is concerned. Logic is overestimated.
I think they are very interested, they are most likely waiting for the noise to die down, and the suggestions, that completely undo all they are trying to achieve being demolished by intelligent players, before they step in and take in the more serious suggestions.
Possibly when players stop trying to remove interceptors and change timers etc to continue to allow unoccupied systems to be safe, then we may see them.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
244
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:38:19 -
[2585] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Well if the goal is to allow any single pilot to ring the doorbell or even reinforce a structure in 40 minutes, then I guess there is no way around the fact that it will get abused on a grand scale. Sovereignty warfare is not, nor should it be, the domain of any individual pilot to accomplish. If you can't get past a POS then you probably shouldn't be trying to get into the sovwar game. That's just my opinion of course, and I will await to see the abuse that results from thinking that it should be. Because if any single pilot has the capability of doing so, then thousands will organize just to show just how broken that mechanic truly is. On the contrary - sov should not be holdable by people that can't even respond within 40 minutes to a single ship ringing their doorbell and asking if they're in - and - if they are in, what are they willing to commit right there and then to forcing them off grid?
Yes it's gonna be 'griefable' but I don't really see the joy for the griefers.
All this threat of goons being able to troll the whole of nullsec is them simply showing their fear that they won't be able to drop their whole blob across every single one of their systems in defence and will have to split up into multiple locally based groups to protect their key areas from spawning 10n command points every couple of days.
Yes they can try and steamroller across the whole of null if they want to - but it's a completely futile exercise unless they then commit to grinding up the indices and actually defending it from thereon. It will just get flipped straight back 2 days later. |
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
439
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:41:59 -
[2586] - Quote
Corey Lean wrote:My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc.
Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal?
This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine.
|
Fix Lag
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
821
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:44:26 -
[2587] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Corey Lean wrote:My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc. Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal? This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine.
lol
CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:45:24 -
[2588] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:All this threat of goons being able to troll the whole of nullsec is them simply showing their fear that they won't be able to drop their whole blob across every single one of their systems in defence and will have to split up into multiple locally based groups to protect their key areas from spawning 10n command points every couple of days. Is it, now? |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
125
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:47:38 -
[2589] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Corey Lean wrote:My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc. Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal? This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine.
Can I join Mordu's Angels sometime this summer? I have good referrals.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Fix Lag
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
822
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:47:47 -
[2590] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Eli Apol wrote:All this threat of goons being able to troll the whole of nullsec is them simply showing their fear that they won't be able to drop their whole blob across every single one of their systems in defence and will have to split up into multiple locally based groups to protect their key areas from spawning 10n command points every couple of days. Is it, now?
TGR we just don't have the numbers
it's too late
abandon everything
we're done for
this is the end
rip goonies
CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.
|
|
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:48:24 -
[2591] - Quote
Just wondering
What forces an attacker to use this system instead of the standard: hit cap building facilities, hit money moons, blue ball the crap out of them, and wait until the defender fail cascades to clean up the system via the proposed game mechanics instead of using the proposed game mechanics to fight the war itself? |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:49:15 -
[2592] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Corey Lean wrote:My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc. Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal? This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine. The projection/confirmation bias is strong with this one. |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:49:34 -
[2593] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Just a thought to reduce the small-gang and individual griefing aspect this form of sov mechanic will induce:
Attacks on TCU's are able to be countered by anchoring them near a POS. Enough guns will ward off the single or small gang. It should also be worth considering allowing Ihubs to be anchored near a POS as well.
I'm not really worried about this proposed sov mechanic with regard to organized groups who have a real intent to lay siege and take sov. But this mechanic, as proposed, will likely result in a massive uptick in annoyance as defenders respond to phantoms just running around and ringing doorbells. Maybe some fights or ganks or whatever you want to call PVP will result, but without a doubt it will also lead to abuses of the mechanic simply to cause the annoyance of forcing a defender to respond to false alarms. We already experience that with POS's. There is no need to expand it to sovereignty-related structures.
What may sound good on paper as a means of conducting legitimate sovwar will result in far more instances of players who just want to be dicks. Therefore, allow POS's to be used as a means to counter these kinds of fake attacks. Kinda works, kinda doesn't... now you're forcing them to bring something that can deal with a POS either in terms of tanking it for upto 40 minutes (without RR) or first killing the POS and then capping the point...which is back to n+1 capital warfare again.
Simpler solution would be to give IHUBs a limited PG and CPU to be able to have a limited amount of guns surrounding it. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10078
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:52:20 -
[2594] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:
A hotdrop will kill you so easily they won't even have time to laugh at you.
Funny thing that, I haven't died yet.
Have you tried it? Rhetorical question, we know the answer is no lol.
Quote: And efficiency of that fit is on par with... I dunno, the only thing that bad... I don't know anything that bad, actually. I mean, you can get something with THAT (in)efficiency for at most 1/7 of your hull price. Which is why that whole idea is looking like stupid and dumb already.
So, you don't understand what you are looking at, don't know how well it works or how much isk per hour it makes (hint, it's more than an afktar) and yet you think it's dumb. You sir are brilliant.
The point of that and my other anti-afk fits is that , rather than docking up and doing nothing, you get to keep ratting (thus making isk and keep getting chances at escalations). It does make less than my pve fit rattlesnake, but m,aking some isk is better than making none.
Quote: Also, fit me an anti-afk barge. You know, the thing you can't keep indy rating without. And don't wink at the mining frigs, they suck. Barges suck as well, but less.
I don't mind how many less-than-bright people can't acknowledge it, but AFK cloaking is the problem, and it's going to be 20x more of a problem in this system.
EFT is free, fit your own anti-afk mining ship.
Secondly, the above poster is a good example of WHY afk cloakers in null (and gankers in high sec) exist in the 1st place. People with this loser "I'm not even going to try to defend myself or think outside the box, I'm just gonna ask ccp to fix it for me" mentality are the only reason afk cloaking (and high sec ganking) are effective psychological tools. Without this kind of mental weakness, the afk cloaker/gankers/bumpers of the world wouldn't even be playing EVE because their would be no prey for them.
So, keep on crying to CCP to fix a "problem" I've already fixed for myself (and you could too, if you weren't lazy), that begging ccp to help you has been so effective over the last 6 years (since 'afk cloaking' became a real thing). |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1582
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:53:25 -
[2595] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Here is some thoughts on addressing income.
1) make moongoo mineable by the players, and not a pos. reclassify the rorqual to a active moon mining ship. So the rorqual can moo mine and boost a fleet and miners can mine. Subsequently, price could drop on these.
basicaly make active hunting out of moon miners. Also gives people the option to do moon mining in total.
A few items to add regarding this
The rorqual cannot be in a pos and moon mine.
The rorqual cannot mine on a moon that has a pos present (so pos dumping is a strategy to stop miners). Yes you can grief with it, but you'd have to bring a hauler just to dump one.
Allow players to hack dead sticks to unanchor them (avoids dead sticking).
The rorqual industrial core should provide bonuses to moon mining and resistances to survive a assault on the rorqual (think of it as mega tank mode). The industrial mode should also protect the rorqual from ewar (same as siege or triage). This gives a lowsec rorqual some protection from being tackled by a subcap, and in some respects makes people require a hictor. The other option is to give the rorqual a flat out ewar immunity that supers have. I would also add dscan immunity to the rorqual also for less "I just found you by dscan move".
What this does is put industrial and miners on the same level of the entire pvp player base. You need them to mine, they need you for protection.
This does a few things. Pos fuel for mining pos is no more. Players have to actively mine. Defense fleets matter. Your location matters even more because you must have people to actively mine moons and pay attention to do it.
This does murder corporation and alliance funds for large and enormous groups. This also gives individual players a way to supplement their income by doing a mining process.
Obviously speed up how much a rorqual mines moons.
I would supplement what the rorqual does with what the orca could do. Basically allow the orca to compress minerals and ore and ice without the need for the mining pos item. Obviously you can still have it and use it if you want. Also I would allow moongoo to be stored in a orca's ore bay for transport.
siphons for moongoo is basically broken and could be removed if this change was considered.
The only reason I bring this is up is because people keep talking about anomaly ratting as the only income. I think the ultimate income should also just be put directly into the players hands. As this is a Sov revamp, the fight for the most valuable part of it also needs a revamp.
That is a really interesting idea, But would that be a step too far at this point? I know a lot of people are upset with the changes, and how it will mean a greater responsibility for their own defence, and higher levels of engagement, It they are also cut off from the security of their protectors, whether real or perceived, would it be too severe a shock, even if their income rose substantially. Very interesting, people might well think deeply on this.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
571
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:53:35 -
[2596] - Quote
Senyu Takashi wrote:Minig belts? Making stuff and selling it on trade hubs? Allow line members and smaller corps in your alliance to own reaction POSes? How about industry, invention and ancient relic invention(since slots are gone there shouldnt be a problem with "not enough stations")? Maybe allowing neuts to dock in your stations and trade with you instead of just exporting moon goo?
You know, red crosses arent the only source of income in this game.
lawl if you think line members aren't allowed to own reaction POS in GSF
also lawl if you think deklein isn't the #1 0.0 industrial region in eve (czech out the industry indices cost indices if you don't believe me)
we like to push red crosses because the skillset for shooting them dovetails well into skills needed to defend our empire
they are also the best way to get people out in space where they can be murdered, pos and industry don't do that (and mining is still too terrible to be worth doing yet)
also lawl if you think we will give neutrals docking access after crius
this post manages to betray your inexperience with nullsec in a remarkable number of unique ways, usually it's just the one or two things
e: i goofed it up into a boner |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10078
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:55:02 -
[2597] - Quote
Minig belts? Making stuff and selling it on trade hubs? Allow line members and smaller corps in your alliance to own reaction POSes? How about industry, invention and ancient relic invention(since slots are gone there shouldnt be a problem with "not enough stations")? Maybe allowing neuts to dock in your stations and trade with you instead of just exporting moon goo?
You know, red crosses arent the only source of income in this game. [/quote]
I don't run any alliance so none of that applies to me.
"shooting red Xs" is the primary income making mechanic in null. "Do industry" is not a solution to the combat anomaly problems lol.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1583
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:01:54 -
[2598] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Minig belts? Making stuff and selling it on trade hubs? Allow line members and smaller corps in your alliance to own reaction POSes? How about industry, invention and ancient relic invention(since slots are gone there shouldnt be a problem with "not enough stations")? Maybe allowing neuts to dock in your stations and trade with you instead of just exporting moon goo? You know, red crosses arent the only source of income in this game.
I don't run any alliance so none of that applies to me.
"shooting red Xs" is the primary income making mechanic in null. "Do industry" is not a solution to the combat anomaly problems lol. [/quote]
Jenn you are very experienced in the Various sites and anomalies, across null.
Would you be able to present to your CSM rep to pass to CCP, the sites, that have issues and problems, that either reward badly for the time taken, or unrealistically lengthen the time you require, with low reward exposed in space, and what about those sites are the issues, to allow the PVE team to resolve them one by one without having to hunt them out?
This would benefit everyone operating in null to one degree or another, fairly improve the income, and help provide some carrot to go with the changes?
Hope you do not mind me suggesting it.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
1309
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:03:22 -
[2599] - Quote
Ahhh more tears and actually tons of feed back.
Ok, my 2 cents, or 2 isk.
1. This new system allows tons of trolling from wh space. 2. freeports offer too many docking games and station games. Those suck, please rethink this idea. 3. Offlining station services at that point is way too easy please rethink that one. 4. Hacking in should not be a flat rate, the time it takes to hack into it should be based on the developed infostructure adn the amount of defenses the defending alliance has. So the more developed the system the longer it takes to take it down.
Final thoughts. 0.0 is not meant to be a safe haven where you can sit rat and get rich. We need a sov overhaul definately but what has been proposed is probably not the best solution. There are a lot of great ideas but..... it needs a lot of renfinement, especially since it is still a numbers game. Larger alliances can spread out and defend easier and the attack still has an even larger uphill battle as they have to spread out to take a system.
CCP- As a PR person you should post at least once every 20 pages to let people know you are still reading.
Why Can't I have a picture signature.
Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
246
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:06:10 -
[2600] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:As long as you think a group of 1k people against 40k can do anything you'll be obliterated as the talis. You're not more than a terrorist group against the big motherf USA of New Eden. Keep on deliring while you stick to npc null, or try to get sov and get obliterated on your way. As long as you think that there's any conceivable reason for the 40k people to go out of their way and spend their time actually harassing that 1k when they could be actually dealing with their competitors instead then the fear propoganda is working on you. |
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
214
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:06:41 -
[2601] - Quote
coming soon this summer: Minigames Online
I don't like the SOV handling it 1 bit, I already don't live in null due to politics of people going "this is just a game so I can shoot at blues and take over friendly alliance and no one can do any thing to me." while yes I know this is a game and we all know how much eve pilots LOVE the hacking minigames. the people that hold the sov will keep it and the people that want to attack it wont because they will not like doing the minigame of hacking and capturing the nodes.
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1130
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:07:11 -
[2602] - Quote
Obsidian Hawk wrote:Ahhh more tears and actually tons of feed back.
Ok, my 2 cents, or 2 isk.
1. This new system allows tons of trolling from wh space. 2. freeports offer too many docking games and station games. Those suck, please rethink this idea. 3. Offlining station services at that point is way too easy please rethink that one. 4. Hacking in should not be a flat rate, the time it takes to hack into it should be based on the developed infostructure adn the amount of defenses the defending alliance has. So the more developed the system the longer it takes to take it down.
Final thoughts. 0.0 is not meant to be a safe haven where you can sit rat and get rich. We need a sov overhaul definately but what has been proposed is probably not the best solution. There are a lot of great ideas but..... it needs a lot of renfinement, especially since it is still a numbers game. Larger alliances can spread out and defend easier and the attack still has an even larger uphill battle as they have to spread out to take a system.
CCP- As a PR person you should post at least once every 20 pages to let people know you are still reading.
I can comment on the wormhole groups with this change. Local still enabled? No thanks keep your sov, just sacrifice for BoB
I agree with the Freeport issue, which I think docking should have fees that go into escrow and paid to the person/group who finally takes over the station (so someone is going to lose isk for playing games).
Yaay!!!!
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
214
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:07:43 -
[2603] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Gypsien Agittain wrote:As long as you think a group of 1k people against 40k can do anything you'll be obliterated as the talis. You're not more than a terrorist group against the big motherf USA of New Eden. Keep on deliring while you stick to npc null, or try to get sov and get obliterated on your way. As long as you think that there's any conceivable reason for the 40k people to go out of their way and spend their time actually harassing that 1k when they could be actually dealing with their competitors instead then the fear propoganda is working on you.
been there, seen that, been on the bad side of it
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2715
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:08:28 -
[2604] - Quote
TarPalantir I wrote:Tar-Palantir is a pretty much life long member of Evolution. That means he has been in BoB, IT, INIT, 401K, and now NCdot alliances. All of them had different ways of fighting, scale, and approaches to the Sov side of Null-Sec. What most had in common is that they fought Wars. Not fights, not battles, but Wars and all that comes with it - the logistics, the attacks, counter attacks, new strategies, new doctrines, new allies, new enemies, months and months of constant fighting towards a *goal*. That is Tar-Palantir's passion. Whether NCdot holds sov or not Tar-Palantir doesn't care per se - as long as NCdot still fights Wars Tar-Palantir will remain active. So what he wants most out of a Sov system is something that allows not just fighting, not just roaming gangs, but Wars. For that to work, the Attacker must be able to threaten stuff effectively, but the Defender must also be confident enough in their ability to defend their Sov that they invest in their Sov space and put assets there. With that investment there, when an attacker comes, it is worth fighting to defend rather than just running away. Being Tar-Palantir, his thoughts about the new Sov system turned into a rather massive Wall of TextGäó. Such a massive Wall of of TextGäó isn't a good fit for a forum discussion - it just chews up too much space. So instead of inserting the whole thing here it is publish on EN24 as those type of sites make more sense for something that long and wordy. External link to EN24 article - http://evenews24.com/2015/03/05/tar-palantirs-take-on-the-proposed-sovereignty-changes/ So that you'll have a slight idea what Tar-Palantir is talking about he will put a VERY brief summary of some of the main points here. You have the main article link if that interests you. 1. The risk/resources/benefit structure is very heavily tilted in favor of the attacker. It doesn't mean the attacker will always win, just that the attacker can put forth minimal effort and resources - low risk - and cause massive problems/grief for the defender. 2. Properly executed Blitzkrieg attacks even between = number alliances can result in the defender looking at losing most/all of their Sov in a 3 day time span based on about 6-7 hours of game play. 3. The Prime Time vulnerability Window is very, very, very limiting. 4. Removing the Prime Time Vulnerability window makes being the defender utter insanity and more than a little frustrating. 6. (yes, skipping 5) - Large numbers are even more critical than ever for defense. Small powers can threaten and even take Sov due to the imbalances mentioned in #1, but they are very unlikely to be able to hold it. Some Sov ideas/concepts mostly from the old POS system that Tar-Palantir considers useful for thinking about the design of a Sov system. Yes, Tar-Palantir believes the old POS system, for all its flaws, was far better than both Dominion Sov and this new proposal.
Talking about yourself in third person , CREEPY.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:10:03 -
[2605] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Gypsien Agittain wrote:As long as you think a group of 1k people against 40k can do anything you'll be obliterated as the talis. You're not more than a terrorist group against the big motherf USA of New Eden. Keep on deliring while you stick to npc null, or try to get sov and get obliterated on your way. As long as you think that there's any conceivable reason for the 40k people to go out of their way and spend their time actually harassing that 1k in a futile task that will be instantly reversible almost as soon as they turn their backs - when instead they could be actually dealing with their primary competitors instead - then their fear propoganda is working on you. Because a) if they're trying to or taking sov, aren't they at that point competitors? and b) "because screw you" isnt a valid eve reason for anything? |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1584
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:11:42 -
[2606] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Obsidian Hawk wrote:Ahhh more tears and actually tons of feed back.
Ok, my 2 cents, or 2 isk.
1. This new system allows tons of trolling from wh space. 2. freeports offer too many docking games and station games. Those suck, please rethink this idea. 3. Offlining station services at that point is way too easy please rethink that one. 4. Hacking in should not be a flat rate, the time it takes to hack into it should be based on the developed infostructure adn the amount of defenses the defending alliance has. So the more developed the system the longer it takes to take it down.
Final thoughts. 0.0 is not meant to be a safe haven where you can sit rat and get rich. We need a sov overhaul definately but what has been proposed is probably not the best solution. There are a lot of great ideas but..... it needs a lot of renfinement, especially since it is still a numbers game. Larger alliances can spread out and defend easier and the attack still has an even larger uphill battle as they have to spread out to take a system.
CCP- As a PR person you should post at least once every 20 pages to let people know you are still reading. I can comment on the wormhole groups with this change. Local still enabled? No thanks keep your sov, just sacrifice for BoB I agree with the Freeport issue, which I think docking should have fees that go into escrow and paid to the person/group who finally takes over the station (so someone is going to lose isk for playing games).
I share your views here, sure we will have some new opportunities, and certainly will enjoy the confusion and maybe adding a bit of mayhem just for fun. But as for owning sov? Nah, don't want to hang around that long.
Just a few sacrifices for BOB will be good.
A live, vibrant, active, occupied nullsec, Gives us much more opportunity for fun, we don't want to take that away from them.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Kaliba Mort
Patriotic Tendencies Executive Outcomes
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:14:37 -
[2607] - Quote
POS Warfare
CCP, please get your geniuses together and look at how POS Warfare worked. How it actually worked. To hold sov, you had to use space - towers had to be online. You had to protect these towers. They were vulnerable 24/7 with little notice - defenders had to be on the ball and could do something, even if it only was using POS guns or setting timers, it was a 27/7 affair. Attackers could kite timers to throw off active defenders. Attackers had to invest in attacking space. It was far more dynamic than dominion sov. Heck, attackers didn't even have to attack anything - they could just online some towers - use the space more and then it was up to the defenders to attack the attackers.
There were strategies and counter strategies. Each system was unique.
Actually go to a white board, and write out how stuff worked with POS warfare. Maybe you'll realize that it was better than dominion sov which sadly is better than what you are proposing.
Space herpes + roam sov does not make it better. When attackers don't even have to invest an HOUR of their time to troll you.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
247
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:14:50 -
[2608] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Gypsien Agittain wrote:As long as you think a group of 1k people against 40k can do anything you'll be obliterated as the talis. You're not more than a terrorist group against the big motherf USA of New Eden. Keep on deliring while you stick to npc null, or try to get sov and get obliterated on your way. As long as you think that there's any conceivable reason for the 40k people to go out of their way and spend their time actually harassing that 1k in a futile task that will be instantly reversible almost as soon as they turn their backs - when instead they could be actually dealing with their primary competitors instead - then their fear propoganda is working on you. Because a) if they're trying to or taking sov, aren't they at that point competitors? and b) "because screw you" isnt a valid eve reason for anything? Sure they'll troll... but considering that their 'trolling' consists of orbitting a structure for 40 minutes then returning 2 days later and having to do it another 10 times - with or without hostiles in system with them.
...and then two days later you flip it straight back because they don't live locally and have no intention of holding it and so didn't grind up the indices or have anyone show up to your velator.
How many days are they gonna keep up this epic trollolololol for whilst also defending their own space during primetime (which I've already suggested should be a much longer period for large alliances). |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
125
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:20:16 -
[2609] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:
A hotdrop will kill you so easily they won't even have time to laugh at you.
Funny thing that, I haven't died yet. Have you tried it? Rhetorical question, we know the answer is no lol. Quote: And efficiency of that fit is on par with... I dunno, the only thing that bad... I don't know anything that bad, actually. I mean, you can get something with THAT (in)efficiency for at most 1/7 of your hull price. Which is why that whole idea is looking like stupid and dumb already.
So, you don't understand what you are looking at, don't know how well it works or how much isk per hour it makes (hint, it's more than an afktar) and yet you think it's dumb. You sir are brilliant. The point of that and my other anti-afk fits is that , rather than docking up and doing nothing, you get to keep ratting (thus making isk and keep getting chances at escalations). It does make less than my pve fit rattlesnake, but m,aking some isk is better than making none. Quote: Also, fit me an anti-afk barge. You know, the thing you can't keep indy rating without. And don't wink at the mining frigs, they suck. Barges suck as well, but less.
I don't mind how many less-than-bright people can't acknowledge it, but AFK cloaking is the problem, and it's going to be 20x more of a problem in this system.
EFT is free, fit your own anti-afk mining ship. Secondly, the above poster is a good example of WHY afk cloakers in null (and gankers in high sec) exist in the 1st place. People with this loser "I'm not even going to try to defend myself or think outside the box, I'm just gonna ask ccp to fix it for me" mentality are the only reason afk cloaking (and high sec ganking) are effective psychological tools. Without this kind of mental weakness, the afk cloaker/gankers/bumpers of the world wouldn't even be playing EVE because their would be no prey for them. So, keep on crying to CCP to fix a "problem" I've already fixed for myself (and you could too, if you weren't lazy), that begging ccp to help you has been so effective over the last 6 years (since 'afk cloaking' became a real thing).
Of course I won't try it, it's stupid.
I can tell an order of magnitude how much per tick it makes. About 2.5 million. It doesn't have damage application for lower sites, it doesn't have tank for higher ones, not at the range it's supposed to work. Curators are pretty useless since at 20 you won't hit a battleship reliably and already in faloff at 30. And worst of all, you would still die like a ****** to a hotdrop at least as good as my dog at eve.
You can do better in a Vexor, and nobody without severe erectile dysfunction would hotdrop a Vexor.
There is no anti-afk barge fit so it's not surprising you dodged the question altogether like a troll you are, which is an extra proof that only trolls don't see a problem with afk cloaky camping. You didn't fix anything, nobody just hotdropped you yet because they are lazy.
Just to fix that, what system are you in?
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
623
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:21:06 -
[2610] - Quote
What is important to remember is that this game isn't divided between attackers and defenders. So saying "attacker gets all the advantages" is meaningless. This game is divided between CFC, N3, and various other sov holding entities all of which have the same potential to be an aggressor. If 1 person can bring a ceptor to harass sov, why can't the defender bring 1 to nullify it? Why wouldn't they be able to bring 1 to nullify it and a few of his buddies to push the attacker off?
For people that like small gang highspeed frig warfare and the ability to pursue asymmetric warfare this will be great.
For the nullbear that has all his stuff in some empty corner of space where he's afk ratting 23/7, this may be a concern.
+1 to sov changes from me.
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
124
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:24:03 -
[2611] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Well if the goal is to allow any single pilot to ring the doorbell or even reinforce a structure in 40 minutes, then I guess there is no way around the fact that it will get abused on a grand scale. Sovereignty warfare is not, nor should it be, the domain of any individual pilot to accomplish. If you can't get past a POS then you probably shouldn't be trying to get into the sovwar game. That's just my opinion of course, and I will await to see the abuse that results from thinking that it should be. Because if any single pilot has the capability of doing so, then thousands will organize just to show just how broken that mechanic truly is. On the contrary - sov should not be holdable by people that can't even respond within 40 minutes to a single ship ringing their doorbell and asking if they're in - and - if they are in, what are they willing to commit right there and then to forcing them off grid? Yes it's gonna be 'griefable' but I don't really see the joy for the griefers. All this threat of goons being able to troll the whole of nullsec is them simply showing their fear that they won't be able to drop their whole blob across every single one of their systems in defence and will have to split up into multiple locally based groups to protect their key areas from spawning 10n command points every couple of days. Yes they can try and steamroller across the whole of null if they want to - but it's a completely futile exercise unless they then commit to grinding up the indices and actually defending it from thereon. It will just get flipped straight back 2 days later.
The joy for griefers, in a game of alts, is griefing and/or annoyance of others. It doesn't require anything past that point to give them joy.
And griefers don't have to care about taking it to the second stage of playing the capture the flag mini-game. Ringing that doorbell and then getting out of harms ways in 2-5 minutes is more than enough. Anyone willing to take it to the next level after reinforcing a structure is just fine by me. Maybe that would show they were serious about it. But opening it up to the one will open it up to the other. I guess we need to decide if that is ultimately good game play.
And you can use "grr goons, they must be scurred," all you like. I'm sure they may not like it for :reasons: that nobody should care about. But that shouldn't be used as an excuse for why the details of this proposal that will be gamed shouldn't be considered. Goons aren't wrong just because they are goons. They just happen to know how they would game it if given the opportunity. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
391
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:26:35 -
[2612] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:The goal of defense isn't to bait attackers to fight, it's the other way around. Sitting at zero with anything for defense is basically iceberging. The goal isn't to create more camping, but actual fights. Interceptors are one way to show that this does not actually create dynamic fights.
If you actually want to provoke dynamic fights, don't bring a fleet comp that can be so easily countered by a couple of cruisers parked at 0?
It will be easy to provoke a dynamic fight with this system; just bring an actual fleet that has a chance of successfully controlling the grid long enough to flip something. The defenders will be forced to mobilize an actual response fleet that can fight you for grid control, and relatively quickly too.
If the attacker actually WANTS to provoke a fight, they won't be using interceptor fleets on sov harassment roams. They'll bring something meaty and put it on the line. If you fly sov harassment in interceptor fleets, you weren't looking for a fight in the first place, and we all know it. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
248
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:27:52 -
[2613] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:The joy for griefers, in a game of alts, is griefing and/or annoyance of others. It doesn't require anything past that point to give them joy.
And griefers don't have to care about taking it to the second stage of playing the capture the flag mini-game. Ringing that doorbell and then getting out of harms ways in 2-5 minutes is more than enough. Anyone willing to take it to the next level after reinforcing a structure is just fine by me. Maybe that would show they were serious about it. But opening it up to the one will open it up to the other. I guess we need to decide if that is ultimately good game play.
And you can use "grr goons, they must be scurred," all you like. I'm sure they may not like it for :reasons: that nobody should care about. But that shouldn't be used as an excuse for why the details of this proposal that will be gamed shouldn't be considered. Goons aren't wrong just because they are goons. They just happen to know how they would game it if given the opportunity. It's very limited annoyance for the defender if he's locally based in the first place.
"Oh me oh my I have to undock and do one warp oh woe is me"
Versus
"Oh me oh my I have to chase this guy all over all my region because everyone else is afk ratting" |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15392
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:31:26 -
[2614] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Sure they'll troll... but considering that their 'trolling' consists of orbitting a structure for 40 minutes then returning 2 days later and having to do it another 10 times - with or without hostiles in system with them.
...and then two days later you flip it straight back because they don't live locally and have no intention of holding it and so didn't grind up the indices or have anyone show up to your velator.
How many days are they gonna keep up this epic trollolololol for whilst also defending their own space during primetime (which I've already suggested should be a much longer period for large alliances).
This describes the last decade of bashing towers all to well.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10080
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:33:35 -
[2615] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Of course I won't try it, it's stupid.
I can tell an order of magnitude how much per tick it makes. About 2.5 million. It doesn't have damage application for lower sites, it doesn't have tank for higher ones, not at the range it's supposed to work. Curators are pretty useless since at 20 you won't hit a battleship reliably and already in faloff at 30. And worst of all, you would still die like a ****** to a hotdrop at least as good as my dog at eve.
You can do better in a Vexor, and nobody without severe erectile dysfunction would hotdrop a Vexor.
There is no anti-afk barge fit so it's not surprising you dodged the question altogether like a troll you are, which is an extra proof that only trolls don't see a problem with afk cloaky camping. You didn't fix anything, nobody just hotdropped you yet because they are lazy.
Just to fix that, what system are you in?
Ok, now you're jsut trolling. My afk phoon makes 70 mil per hour (more than an afktar) in havens, forsaken hubs and forsaken rally points of all races. you blap frigs in one shot with sentries as they approach (you warp at 50). This clears the way for the FoF missiles (for they don't waste dps on frigs) and they apply just fine to NPC crusiers and battleships. The sentries are firing a little bit into fall off on the battleships for a while (this they close to their orbiting range of usually 45-50km for ships like corpus popes and the like of each race, but most BSs are approaching (zero traversal) so it's fine.
The ship is passively aligned to a pos or station (so the MJD can help you insta warp. Some decloaks on you, you spam the MJD (which makes him bumping you noting). It it's a ship with a scram to keep you from MJDing but not enough to keep you from warping you warp. If he does have enough points to keep you from also warping, you abandon those sentries, pop out the ecm drones, turn on the lock breaker and NEUT his ass while spamming warp.
And you get away before they 1st guy can jump through the jump portal.
You prove my point about your type of people (whiners). You don't know how it works, you don't TRY things for yourself, you think you know things you don't and you reply snarkily from a position of extreme ignorance. Then you run to CCP begging them to compensate yo for your ignorance lol. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12000
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:36:00 -
[2616] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: It's very limited annoyance for the defender if he's locally based in the first place.
No one can base locally. That's the part everyone seems to be forgetting.
You're also severely underestimating just how much trouble one dedicated camper can cause.
The Tl;DR of a bunch of the earlier replies to me:
"But Kaarous, the defender has forty minutes under perfectly ideal conditions to un reinforce it!"
Yeah, I know. How many systems in the game actually merit maxed out indices? How many don't? The last number is a damn sight bigger than the first number. (nevermind that this is a huge underestimation of just how much trouble one guy with half a dozen cloaked alts will be able to cause)
Unless this is accompanied by a full, and I mean full restructuring of personal level income in nullsec, it will be problematic. Without said full restructuring, it is unreasonable to expect people, plural, to live in and defend a single system when that system has worse income than slowboating highsec missions. (let alone the disgusting income of Incursions)
"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
248
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:40:06 -
[2617] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: It's very limited annoyance for the defender if he's locally based in the first place.
No one can base locally. That's the part everyone seems to be forgetting. You're also severely underestimating just how much trouble one dedicated camper can cause. The Tl;DR of a bunch of the earlier replies to me: "But Kaarous, the defender has forty minutes under perfectly ideal conditions to un reinforce it!" Yeah, I know. How many systems in the game actually merit maxed out indices? How many don't? The last number is a damn sight bigger than the first number. (nevermind that this is a huge underestimation of just how much trouble one guy with half a dozen cloaked alts will be able to cause) Unless this is accompanied by a full, and I mean full restructuring of personal level income in nullsec, it will be problematic. Without said full restructuring, it is unreasonable to expect people, plural, to live in and defend a single system when that system has worse income than slowboating highsec missions. (let alone the disgusting income of Incursions) Completely agree. Null incomes need to be changed. Instead of moons giving isk to the alliance execs to pad their wallets from the top down the isk should be made available to line members and distributed from the bottom up.
If anyone is willing to actually post an uptodate value on those R32s and R64s by the way, just so we know how much income is never seen by the line members of those 40k strong alliances in this poor nullsec that we keep hearing about I'd love to hear it :) |
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:40:58 -
[2618] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Alli Ginthur wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Gypsien Agittain wrote:As long as you think a group of 1k people against 40k can do anything you'll be obliterated as the talis. You're not more than a terrorist group against the big motherf USA of New Eden. Keep on deliring while you stick to npc null, or try to get sov and get obliterated on your way. As long as you think that there's any conceivable reason for the 40k people to go out of their way and spend their time actually harassing that 1k in a futile task that will be instantly reversible almost as soon as they turn their backs - when instead they could be actually dealing with their primary competitors instead - then their fear propoganda is working on you. Because a) if they're trying to or taking sov, aren't they at that point competitors? and b) "because screw you" isnt a valid eve reason for anything? Sure they'll troll... but considering that their 'trolling' consists of orbitting a structure for 40 minutes then returning 2 days later and having to do it another 10 times - with or without hostiles in system with them. ...and then two days later you flip it straight back because they don't live locally and have no intention of holding it and so didn't grind up the indices or have anyone show up to your velator. How many days are they gonna keep up this epic trollolololol for whilst also defending their own space during primetime (which I've already suggested should be a much longer period for large alliances). And how many times are you going to retake it after they trololol through your sov again and again? Who gets tired first? I would be willing to bet its not the larger entity. And I do agree it should be a longer vulnerability window for bigger alliances, based on either amount of sov owned or size of alliance, but again, that would be able to be manipulated. They need to give people a reason to risk getting trolled by the big blocs before changing how you get trolled by them. Give null a carrot before the stick, or at least at the same time |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
391
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:41:24 -
[2619] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:Since TCU won't have a cost attached to it, this seriously can happen. They can go around, blow up all the iHubs, plant TCUs everywhere, and force all stations into freeport mode. The fact that you think Goons aren't a threat and this is a joke shows you don't realize why small alliances don't like these changes. It supports slash and burn tactics.
You are vastly oversimplifying how quick this will be. In order to do any of these things, another fleet needs to come back for the second timer and actually win the constellation control node contest for EVERY STRUCTURE they reinforced in the first round.
So not only was no one home to defensive E-link the initial fleet, no one was home to win the control node contest during the second timer. Both of which take place in the defender's prime time using mechanics that are so advantaged to the defender that it's pretty much "if they show up they'll probably win" (at least, assuming we're still talking about the troll attacker fleets that couldn't hold grid against a few carebears in T1 cruisers). If all this happens to be true, then YES, absolutely, that space shouldn't belong to anyone and praise be the troll fleet that burns it to the ground.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:41:36 -
[2620] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:If anyone is willing to actually post an uptodate value on those R32s and R64s by the way, just so we know how much income is never seen by the line members of those 40k strong alliances in this poor nullsec that we keep hearing about I'd love to hear it :) I believe it was, a few pages ago. |
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2833
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:41:40 -
[2621] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: It's very limited annoyance for the defender if he's locally based in the first place.
No one can base locally. That's the part everyone seems to be forgetting. You're not maximizing income and therefore you CAN'T base locally? Really?
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
167
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:43:02 -
[2622] - Quote
I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?
EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
248
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:45:08 -
[2623] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Eli Apol wrote:If anyone is willing to actually post an uptodate value on those R32s and R64s by the way, just so we know how much income is never seen by the line members of those 40k strong alliances in this poor nullsec that we keep hearing about I'd love to hear it :) I believe it was, a few pages ago. I hazarded a guess at 7 trillion/month for just R64s across the whole of nullsec based on data a few years old... completely passively going into alliance pools without any industry indices or ships required in space (aside from a quick blockade runner) |
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:46:35 -
[2624] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?
Maybe I need to check my reading comprehension, but wasnt one of the goals of this sov retool to allow smaller groups a chance to get a foothold? |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
249
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:49:57 -
[2625] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:And how many times are you going to retake it after they trololol through your sov again and again? Who gets tired first? I would be willing to bet its not the larger entity. And I do agree it should be a longer vulnerability window for bigger alliances, based on either amount of sov owned or size of alliance, but again, that would be able to be manipulated. They need to give people a reason to risk getting trolled by the big blocs before changing how you get trolled by them. Give null a carrot before the stick, or at least at the same time Well allegedly this trolololol fleet is going to carry on indefinitely across every single contestable system even though there's no reward for doing so except briefly lighting the map up with an extra flag for two days. So yeah your guess is as good as mine.
And yes the carrots definitely need to be tasty enough for small groups to persevere :) |
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2549
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:50:12 -
[2626] - 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. Neither have I seem any of the candidates for CSM sharing their opinions (except for Xenuria and he doesn't count). I want to know what the nullsec candidates in particular think about all this.
Manny, Endie, Corebloodbrothers - where are you?
I am doing my damndest to catch up with this thread. But you lot keep writing faster than I can read. When I am full caught up I will start actual comments and answers but like ISD Ezwal, I am reading it all.
Every damn post.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10081
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:51:21 -
[2627] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?
The difference is Goons will probably let some scrub alliances take a bit of their space then , like a cat playing with a dying mouse, the fun will begin.
The main problem I have with convuluted ideas like this new sov system and Dominion is that it doesn't take into account the kinds of things people actually do. They seemed to be designed for a 'perfectly reasonable person' (no such person has ever existed) instread of huiman beings.
Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. Big coaltions might hire mercs to patrol their space during prime time so they themselves can go do actual fun things like attack somone else's prime time in force.
I'll be that every single renter alliance is about to have their prime time set to AUTZ or whenver the North American, Euros and Russians aren't around lol.
And if i were a tonfoil hat man, i'd say CCP was doing this because they know this is gonna generate a lot of revenue in the form of new entosis using home defense frig alts lol. Well for a while at least, till everyone figures out that this "FW in null" sov stuff just isn't fun.
And that's the big thing. Sov is about bigger ships (cruisers and up) having bigger fights. I don't know why this kind of low sec small gang crap is desirable in null.
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:57:15 -
[2628] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?
Maybe I need to check my reading comprehension, but wasnt one of the goals of this sov retool to allow smaller groups a chance to get a foothold?
It is, and it will work. Just not right away. This change, if not watered down all to hell, will make keeping a sprawling empire so onerous, and being an insurgent within one so much fun, that eventually the big empires will collapse. Maintaining one will just be completely un-fun compared to living in NPC null next door and wrecking one.
Systems with high end moons will be under constant assault. Likewise systems occupied by renters with little or no will to fight. Starve the body of revenue and the head will fall.
Collapsing the big empires that exist today will have to happen first. Then, and only then, will the little guys stand a chance, and then, only the little guys who can and will fight.
It's an optimistic scenario that, frankly, has little chance. These changes will be watered down substantially to ensure the big empire's survival. The truth is that CCP has become pretty dependent on those big empires and the following that they bring to the game. They aren't going to do anything that will disrupt them in a major way. |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
168
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:59:12 -
[2629] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?
The difference is Goons will probably let some scrub alliances take a bit of their space then , like a cat playing with a dying mouse, the fun will begin. The main problem I have with convuluted ideas like this new sov system and Dominion is that it doesn't take into account the kinds of things people actually do. They seemed to be designed for a 'perfectly reasonable person' (no such person has ever existed) instread of huiman beings. Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. Big coaltions might hire mercs to patrol their space during prime time so they themselves can go do actual fun things like attack somone else's prime time in force. I'll be that every single renter alliance is about to have their prime time set to AUTZ or whenver the North American, Euros and Russians aren't around lol. And if i were a tonfoil hat man, i'd say CCP was doing this because they know this is gonna generate a lot of revenue in the form of new entosis using home defense frig alts lol. Well for a while at least, till everyone figures out that this "FW in null" sov stuff just isn't fun. And that's the big thing. Sov is about bigger ships (cruisers and up) having bigger fights. I don't know why this kind of low sec small gang crap is desirable in null.
As I thought. Nothing to do what is being said.
EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:03:08 -
[2630] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Eli Apol wrote:If anyone is willing to actually post an uptodate value on those R32s and R64s by the way, just so we know how much income is never seen by the line members of those 40k strong alliances in this poor nullsec that we keep hearing about I'd love to hear it :) I believe it was, a few pages ago. I hazarded a guess at 7 trillion/month for just R64s across the whole of nullsec based on data a few years old... completely passively going into alliance pools without any industry indices or ships required in space (aside from a quick blockade runner) And someone responded with "slightly" newer numbers shortly thereafter. |
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1491
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:03:40 -
[2631] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:The main problem I have with convuluted ideas like this new sov system and Dominion is that it doesn't take into account the kinds of things people actually do. They seemed to be designed for a 'perfectly reasonable person' (no such person has ever existed) instread of huiman beings.
And the main problem with leaping to this conclusion is that we haven't seen either a capital rebalance or a PVE rebalance yet. Hell, we don't know where POSes are going either. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be skeptical, only that we only have some of the information.
Personally, the first thing I thought of was the PIZZA guy with something like 20 cloaky alts. And while I tip my hat to your Typhoon fit, which on top of everything else is cheap enough to not look like an attractive target in the first place, it fails the condition imposed by your above-quoted argument: 'perfectly reasonable people' would have adapted in that way, but that isn't who we're dealing with. And anyway, anomalies themselves are about three or four kinds of broken. As you know.
For those looking for CSM feedback: besides Mike and Steve, mynnna is posting in this thread on an alt (hi mynnna! don't be shy!) and Xander Phoena has posted a lengthy reaction on Crossing Zebras.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:04:23 -
[2632] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
The difference is Goons will probably let some scrub alliances take a bit of their space then , like a cat playing with a dying mouse, the fun will begin.
Because the big coalitions and the big alliances are too fat.
Maintenance fee for alliance existence and structures should be exponential.
The more you have stations, TCU, ihub, the more you should pay. And at some point it should be unsustainable.
CCP need to burn these coalitions to the ground by alliance and sov fee mechanics.
They will respond by dividing in smaller groups but we will see new leaders in these groups and if they have some balls they will want the independence.
Big coalitions must be burned to the ground with new fee mechanics, like large empire in civilization game for example. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
391
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:05:13 -
[2633] - Quote
Trii Seo wrote:El'Grimm wrote:[quote=Lena Lazair] You cheapen the tools of war, you cheapen the experience. If you think the same group of thousands of people are going to want to engage in the sov game when the new mechanics scream "lol sov why" you are the one who is mistaken. If these players so wanted skirmish and lol fights they wouldn't be bothered about sov warfare anyway and we'd all be flying in FW, the reason we aren't, because we dont want cheap meaningless pvp that has no practical use, nothing really happens and changes every few days.
This. Even if the system were to work well, it really will not magically cause more fights. Beyond the fact that there's no reason to launch a sov war, the new system rewards hunkering down in your region and not launching a war because the moment you invade someone, someone else can slip in and create a pile of timers.
Hunkering down is not gonna stop your barely-blue neighbors from slipping in and creating a pile of timers in YOUR space. Daily sov harassment will be a defacto thing after this. No blue diplo arrangement is going to prevent it when it is this trivially easy for line members to do.
As far as not provoking fights? Well, only if the people you are fighting don't want their stations/ihubs/tcu's. Otherwise, it's the very definition of provoking fights because they MUST mobilize to counter your fleet. Skirmish roams don't work now because the defender has no reason to undock. You play some station games, whee.... the attacker can't do anything except force a couple of mission runners to dock up.
But NOW if the defenders don't undock, that same roaming cruiser fleet can burn every IHUB, station, and TCU they can find. It's funny that people are focused on the troll fleets, which are trivially countered by brick-tanked E-link defenders flat out ignoring them. Actual fleets of T3's/HACs roaming your space and flipping sov will be what you need to fear, since they can take and hold a grid long enough to do it and then come back and win the control node contests too, and the only defense will be to actually fight them.
The idea that your line members WON'T take out 30 HACs on a whim and start actually reinforcing all your blue neighbors is hilarious. Of COURSE they will, just as soon as they get bored of burning all the dead sov with their trollceptor fleets first (which will quickly become pointless once they start hitting space with people actively living there).
Basically, it's gonna be WH life for null. If you DON'T undock and provide a fight when someone roams your space, the next step is eviction. Defenders no longer have the luxury of turtling up to avoid roaming skirmish fleets, because those fleets can BURN YOUR SOV TO THE GROUND. So you'd better undock and provide a fight.
Sure, there are some people for which this mechanic won't provoke fights. Those people will be gone from null in a week, and all the sov that remains will be held by people willing to undock and fight those roaming subcap fleets. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
572
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:19:31 -
[2634] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote: The idea that your line members WON'T take out 30 HACs on a whim and start actually reinforcing all your blue neighbors is hilarious. Of COURSE they will, just as soon as they get bored of burning all the dead sov with their trollceptor fleets first (which will quickly become pointless once they start hitting space with people actively living there).
this is hilarious
if a person fucks with blues, they get kicked from alliance and blacklisted
the existing punishment mechanic works plenty fine here |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1585
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:19:37 -
[2635] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: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. Neither have I seem any of the candidates for CSM sharing their opinions (except for Xenuria and he doesn't count). I want to know what the nullsec candidates in particular think about all this.
Manny, Endie, Corebloodbrothers - where are you?
I am doing my damndest to catch up with this thread. But you lot keep writing faster than I can read. When I am full caught up I will start actual comments and answers but like ISD Ezwal, I am reading it all. Every damn post. m
Hard, isn't it, but persevere, in between all the attempts to render the changes ineffective, there are some who are getting on board, and offering sensible suggestions, but seperating the two can be a challenge.
The only suggestion I can offer is to recommend some carrot to go along with what some see as a stick. It will be disruptive even if the end goals are worthwhile, and a carrot at this stage will go over well, and get more on board with the concept.
As for the carrot? Good luck :)
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
750
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:25:15 -
[2636] - Quote
To all those poor little unimaginative nullbears losing their minds over Gewnswerm Trollceptors, the Gallente Militia is proud to offer you the single most EVE-appropriate solution in the history of mankind:
Bring a Drake.
[Drake, Trolltastique] Damage Control II Shield Power Relay II Shield Power Relay II Shield Power Relay II
Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Amplifier II Shield Recharger II
Prototype 'Arbalest' Rapid Light Missile Launcher, Imperial Navy Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Light Missile I Prototype 'Arbalest' Rapid Light Missile Launcher, Imperial Navy Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Light Missile I Prototype 'Arbalest' Rapid Light Missile Launcher, Imperial Navy Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Light Missile I Prototype 'Arbalest' Rapid Light Missile Launcher, Imperial Navy Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Light Missile I Prototype 'Arbalest' Rapid Light Missile Launcher, Imperial Navy Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Light Missile I Prototype 'Arbalest' Rapid Light Missile Launcher, Imperial Navy Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Light Missile I [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Purger I Medium Core Defense Field Purger I Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
Warrior II x5
Sit at zero, hit F1 for the Entosis module, F2 for RLML, drop your drones, go afk. To push you off, they'd need to bring about 8+ Inties to do it, which would be in range of those RLMLs - and these risk averse pansy little nullbears in their Trollceptors won't put themselves at actual risk to take sov.
For maximum amusement, fit a cyno as well - everyone knows all Drakes are Bait Drakes, and the cyno would prove it! The baddies would be stuck on grid since their Entosis modules prevent their departure, so you can bring in all those nasty supercaps or whatever just to screw with them.
You're welcome.
This message has been brought to you by Gallente Militia Occupancy Warfare Consulting Services LLC, a subsidiary of Justified Chaos. Custom Occupancy Sov solutions can be yours today - reasonable rates, inquire within!
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
53
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:27:02 -
[2637] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
251
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:28:13 -
[2638] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Eli Apol wrote:I hazarded a guess at 7 trillion/month for just R64s across the whole of nullsec based on data a few years old... completely passively going into alliance pools without any industry indices or ships required in space (aside from a quick blockade runner) And someone responded with "slightly" newer numbers shortly thereafter. Ye, he said 5b/month for dyspro but then said the others were worthless but then said all the money was in R64's and cadmium....
So absolutely no clue what the final answer was (dyspro is an R64 yet he kinda sounded like he thought it wasn't, cadmium's a lowly R16 and there's a shedload of them)
Thanks for the help though, you've been incredibly useful |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
391
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:33:42 -
[2639] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:this is hilarious
if a person fucks with blues, they get kicked from alliance and blacklisted
the existing punishment mechanic works plenty fine here
You know why that works now? Because the only people that can feasibly **** with blues are cap and supercap pilots, which is a small fraction of the alliance. Further, they actually have to put very expensive ships on the line to do it, and the result will be getting those ships either welped by the enemy or simply popped by blues as punishment before they kick you out in very embarrassing, very expensive killmails.
After the change? Every single one of your line members flying cheap subcaps can go do this. They won't need SRP, they won't care if they welp the fleet, and if you kick them out, I'm curious to know who is going to actually do the work of defending YOUR sov every day? You were counting on those line members living in each system to login 4 hours a day and defensive E-link on demand. You think your small % of supercap pilots are going to pick up the slack after you've kicked out 50% of the subcap line members who wanted to get actual fights once in a while without having to fly all the way down to Provi? |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
125
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:34:55 -
[2640] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:
Of course I won't try it, it's stupid.
I can tell an order of magnitude how much per tick it makes. About 2.5 million. It doesn't have damage application for lower sites, it doesn't have tank for higher ones, not at the range it's supposed to work. Curators are pretty useless since at 20 you won't hit a battleship reliably and already in faloff at 30. And worst of all, you would still die like a ****** to a hotdrop at least as good as my dog at eve.
You can do better in a Vexor, and nobody *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal. would hotdrop a Vexor.
There is no anti-afk barge fit so it's not surprising you dodged the question *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.. You didn't fix anything, nobody just hotdropped you yet because they are lazy.
Just to fix that, what system are you in?
Lol, someone doens't evne know the stats of Curators. Those are the ranges of GARDES you have there brilliant guy, Ok, now you're just trolling. My afk phoon makes 70 mil per hour (more than an afktar) in havens, forsaken hubs and forsaken rally points of all races. you blap frigs in one shot with sentries as they approach (you warp at 50). Takes a while to lock but that's ok. This clears the way for the FoF missiles (for they don't waste dps on frigs) and they apply just fine to NPC crusiers and battleships. The sentries are firing a little bit into fall off on the battleships for a while (this they close to their orbiting range of usually 45-50km for ships like corpus popes and the like of each race, but most BSs are approaching (zero traversal) so it's fine. The ship is passively aligned to a pos or station (so the MJD can help you insta warp. Some decloaks on you, you spam the MJD (which makes him bumping you noting). It it's a ship with a scram to keep you from MJDing but not enough to keep you from warping you warp. If he does have enough points to keep you from also warping, you abandon those sentries, pop out the ecm drones, turn on the lock breaker and NEUT his ass while spamming warp. And you get away before they 1st guy can jump through the jump portal. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. You don't know how it works, you don't TRY things for yourself, you think you know things you don't and you reply snarkily from a position of extreme ignorance. Then you run to CCP begging them to compensate yo *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Now I know you are a liar.
> you blap frigs in one shot with sentries as they approach (you warp at 50). Takes a while to lock but that's ok. 1) No you don't. Not without DDAs. Lie better. 2) Your locking range is 19km. Lie better. 3) Your locking time is 80 seconds. Lie better.
> they apply just fine to NPC crusiers and battleships. Your application to cruisers is 40% at best. Or 200 of your 500 dps, assuming all V. Average deadspace cruiser has 4500 EHP. Assuming no missiles wasted you're going to need 23 seconds per cruiser.
> My afk phoon makes 70 mil per hour (more than an afktar) in havens, forsaken hubs and forsaken rally points of all races. It takes an extremely specialized fit costing a lot of ISK, or a carrier, to get 70 mil per hour of pure ISK in Havens. Yours don't qualify simply because in Haven at 50 you will die due to having not nearly enough tank. Even if your tank holds, you will run out of cap in 6 minutes and die. And you need a hour to clear haven in this, if not more, considering poor dps and application.
I call it, you are trolling, and not even trying. 4/10 for making me import this crap fit into EFT to blow you up with numbers.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
|
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1432
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:35:57 -
[2641] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:El'Grimm wrote:If its not ceptors it will be something else if trolling is going to be so easy. If trolling is in any way feasible with this new system holding sov is going to be a 28 hours per week job, no matter how small or big your space is.
If you're the only guy in your alliance, then you are absolutely correct. Fortunately, you have OTHER PLAYERS on your side and (I hope) they play the game too. You may also have alts that can do the boring dirty work while you are doing something else - something 90% of the vets in this game do already. Another option is to let your **** get reinforced and then be ready to bring out a response fleet if the trollers actually decide to attack your stuff. ZOMG a fight! If they don't come back, then your alts can "magic wand" your stuff back to full health. OR, you can just let the non-critical systems fall and then send your alt over there to reinforce their stuff the next day. If they don't show up for the fight, then your alt (hopefully 5 guys in your primetime can spare 5 alts to get this stuff done in 20 minutes) can take back the system with minimal effort on your part.
TBH they may as well just do as you say, let the stuff reinforce instantly so people can respond as it comes it.
BRAVE newbies is an exception but most alliances I have been it trying to gather people into a defence fleet is like getting blood from a stone. FCs need to be found, people dragged in from the fields and put into the right ships. All this takes about like...10 hours. This is for "online" alliances. Once you start getting to the more elite jabber based alliances you are looking at another 3 days to find someone who can ping the jabber. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10087
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:36:01 -
[2642] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Senyu Takashi wrote:
Minig belts? Making stuff and selling it on trade hubs? Allow line members and smaller corps in your alliance to own reaction POSes? How about industry, invention and ancient relic invention(since slots are gone there shouldnt be a problem with "not enough stations")? Maybe allowing neuts to dock in your stations and trade with you instead of just exporting moon goo?
You know, red crosses arent the only source of income in this game.
I don't run any alliance so none of that applies to me. "shooting red Xs" is the primary income making mechanic in null. "Do industry" is not a solution to the combat anomaly problems lol. Jenn you are very experienced in the Various sites and anomalies, across null. Would you be able to present to your CSM rep to pass to CCP, the sites, that have issues and problems, that either reward badly for the time taken, or unrealistically lengthen the time you require, with low reward exposed in space, and what about those sites are the issues, to allow the PVE team to resolve them one by one without having to hunt them out? This would benefit everyone operating in null to one degree or another, fairly improve the income, and help provide some carrot to go with the changes? Hope you do not mind me suggesting it. Fixed quoting. ISD Ezwal.
don't mind at all and if someone wants to do that, I'll help.
But CCP knows already. They can't not know.
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
393
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:36:02 -
[2643] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. Big coaltions might hire mercs to patrol their space during prime time so they themselves can go do actual fun things like attack somone else's prime time in force.
Renters are dumb, but they aren't THAT dumb. Even they'll figure out pretty quickly that the only reason to pay rent goes away the moment supercap fleet leases become unnecessary.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:37:09 -
[2644] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Eli Apol wrote:I hazarded a guess at 7 trillion/month for just R64s across the whole of nullsec based on data a few years old... completely passively going into alliance pools without any industry indices or ships required in space (aside from a quick blockade runner) And someone responded with "slightly" newer numbers shortly thereafter. Ye, he said 5b/month for dyspro but then said the others were worthless but then said all the money was in R64's and cadmium.... So absolutely no clue what the final answer was (dyspro is an R64 yet he kinda sounded like he thought it wasn't, cadmium's a lowly R16 and there's a shedload of them) Thanks for the help though, you've been incredibly useful I'm sorry for even trying. |
Callduron
Corporate Scum Brave Collective
617
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:38:55 -
[2645] - Quote
Could I request that there's a good hard think about the availability of information please?
I love spottting that there's some random stranger's timer coming out soon then going along and picking a side to third party for, or simply shooting anyone. I think that adds to the game and creates chaos and uncertainty.
I think it's great that in Faction War you can see where the conflict is.
I think it's great that for pocos you can see when there's likely to be a fight.
I think it's old-fashioned and somewhat bizarre that you can't see sov timers. Hell, I can't even see my own alliance's timer without going to a third party board.
Now if you want to even things up, please bear in mind that large well-organised groups have third party boards and small upcoming alliances probably won't.
From Fozzie's blog:
Quote:This is an example of the new Sovereignty dashboard displaying information on an alliance level. This panel would only be available to members of the alliance, and could be potentially restricted by roles. Each Sovereignty structure belonging to the alliance would be visible here, with the ability to filter and sort by distance, type and status. With this panel, alliances will be able to keep track of the real-time status of their active Sovereignty capture events to direct their forces where they will be most needed.
OK so firstly please don't restrict by roles. That means in a small alliance only a handful of people will be able to see and they MUST watch it at all times during the vulnerability. It's not remotely immersive - if someone was bombing Los Angeles you wouldn't need Obama to physically check a Are My Cities Being Bombed screen for him to find out about it.
Next I'd like something more creative with the UI. If somewhere in my constellation is being entosised please turn the constellation line in the top left of the screen orange. If my system is being entosised please turn the system name flashy orange, a nice rich shade of bonfire orange-red.
My frikin space is burning down, I shouldn't need to check some spreadsheet to notice. (Remember capsuleers command ships with dozens or hundreds or thousands of crew members).
I'd like those graphics also visible to third parties and findable on the starmap. I can find enemy cynos and go shoot them, I can find enemy ratters and go shoot them, but world war three breaks out at VFK and I have to drill down to some obscure window no one normally looks at?
That's just dull.
Sov conflict should breathe excitement through the UI.
I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/
I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
|
Zhul Chembull
Universalis Imperium The Bastion
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:39:03 -
[2646] - Quote
Well after 11 years, here it is. I am not sure about the changes, like many have pointed out, slash and burn tactics. How will the big blocks keep going ? Only time can tell here.
Chasing around ceptor fleets all the time appears to be something that will be more tedious than fun. I think the goal the community was looking for were good fleet battles and an end to a stagnant null sec. I have spoken with several people who are pumped for the changes, but they enjoy going and causing havoc elsewhere.
A compromise, suggested many times over, is to only allow the ship to fit on battle cruiser and above hull. Perhaps usable by a new T3 type of ship. Whatever changes happen they dont appear to be something that will help in the long run. I really like the idea of occupancy based sov rules, but that is not happening. The trollceptor idea seems to be fairly reasonable.
Some have said the large blocks are whining, but I honestly see this effecting guys trying to get into null sec. Perhaps back to the drawing boards gents ? |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
253
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:43:00 -
[2647] - Quote
Zhul Chembull wrote:Chasing around ceptor fleets all the time appears to be something that will be more tedious than fun. I think the goal the community was looking for were good fleet battles and an end to a stagnant null sec. I have spoken with several people who are pumped for the changes, but they enjoy going and causing havoc elsewhere.
A compromise, suggested many times over, is to only allow the ship to fit on battle cruiser and above hull. Perhaps usable by a new T3 type of ship. Whatever changes happen they dont appear to be something that will help in the long run. I really like the idea of occupancy based sov rules, but that is not happening. The trollceptor idea seems to be fairly reasonable. zzzz another CFC member trying to get rid of interceptors. If you have active members in all your systems there's no chasing needed, just locally undock one guy and make them move on |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1585
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:44:13 -
[2648] - Quote
Phig Neutron wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack. Interesting, so basically it will need the current renters to actually be part of the alliance that places the sovereignty units. So in short the renters will be doing the job that they are currently paying rent for, the defence of their space. Will they be negotiating to be paid a fee rather than paying one?
That could be a nice additional source of income, but I can see that that could prove unpopular with those losing an income stream and having to pay instead.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1824
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:50:35 -
[2649] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Phig Neutron wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack. Interesting, so basically it will need the current renters to actually be part of the alliance that places the sovereignty units. So in short the renters will be doing the job that they are currently paying rent for, the defence of their space. Will they be negotiating to be paid a fee rather than paying one? That could be a nice additional source of income, but I can see that that could prove unpopular with those losing an income stream and having to pay instead. But is that the cost of retaining sovereignty?
no, the renters will stop paying rent and take over their own space. paying rent is a racket anyway. Yes i've done it. but that was in '10
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10087
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:51:03 -
[2650] - Quote
Basil Pupkin
Now I know you are a liar.[/quote wrote:No sir, you're simply delusional. Read below and I will demonstrate. Quote: > you blap frigs in one shot with sentries as they approach (you warp at 50). Takes a while to lock but that's ok. 1) No you don't. Not without DDAs. Lie better. 2) Your locking range is 19km. Lie better. 3) Your locking time is 80 seconds. Lie better.
You do know that npc frigs yellow box you till they star shooting. you pull in the sentries while you are locking them, and pop them out as they agress. the sentries aggro them and pop. because zero transversal. Looka t what you are doing here. You are arguing with me about somehting I use and that you don't. It's in credible, you are so tied to the idea that afk cloaking is a problem that only ccp can fix that you won't even TRY to help yourself. Unbelievable. That's just not sane. Quote: > they apply just fine to NPC crusiers and battleships. Your application to cruisers is 40% at best. Or 200 of your 500 dps, assuming all V. Average deadspace cruiser has 4500 EHP. Assuming no missiles wasted you're going to need 23 seconds per cruiser.
Sentrys kill BSs 1st, then cruisers. By the time the cruisers start to orbit, the sentries are shooting cruisers too. That's why this ship makes 70 mil per hour instead of 100, it's not as fast as using something else. What it is is safe. Again, you are unbeleiveable. Quote: It takes an extremely specialized fit costing a lot of ISK, or a carrier, to get 70 mil per hour of pure ISK in Havens. Yours don't qualify simply because in Haven at 50 you will die due to having not nearly enough tank. Even if your tank holds, you will run out of cap in 6 minutes and die. And you need a hour to clear haven in this, if not more, considering poor dps and application.
Cap in 6 minutes? ROFL LMAO So let me guess, yo looked at it in EFT without turning the MJD off. You do know that EFT doesn't get the cap right because it assumes that the mjd is perma running right? My phoon is cap stable. [quote] I call it, you are trolling, and not even trying. 4/10 for making me import this crap fit into EFT to blow you up with numbers.
LMAO , you know you lost this fight right? you've exposed yor ignorance to everyone here (not knowing the stats for curators, not knowing how to use EFT, not understanding the mechanics of aggro),
I mean damn, all this because you are in denial about afk cloaking? That's incredibly sad. If you had an honest bone in your body you'd try the ship for yourself, see that it works, and come back to these forums and admit your mistake.
i won't be replying to another of your posts, everyone can see who is right here.
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10087
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:51:53 -
[2651] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Phig Neutron wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack. Interesting, so basically it will need the current renters to actually be part of the alliance that places the sovereignty units. So in short the renters will be doing the job that they are currently paying rent for, the defence of their space. Will they be negotiating to be paid a fee rather than paying one? That could be a nice additional source of income, but I can see that that could prove unpopular with those losing an income stream and having to pay instead. But is that the cost of retaining sovereignty? no, the renters will stop paying rent and take over their own space. paying rent is a racket anyway. Yes i've done it. but that was in '10
I think we can find a 3rd party to hold the isk if you'd like to bet some. I'm game if you are. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:53:13 -
[2652] - Quote
Callduron wrote:Could I request that there's a good hard think about the availability of information please? I love spottting that there's some random stranger's timer coming out soon then going along and picking a side to third party for, or simply shooting anyone. I think that adds to the game and creates chaos and uncertainty. I think it's great that in Faction War you can see where the conflict is. I think it's great that for pocos you can see when there's likely to be a fight. I think it's old-fashioned and somewhat bizarre that you can't see sov timers. Hell, I can't even see my own alliance's timer without going to a third party board. Now if you want to even things up, please bear in mind that large well-organised groups have third party boards and small upcoming alliances probably won't. From Fozzie's blog: Quote:This is an example of the new Sovereignty dashboard displaying information on an alliance level. This panel would only be available to members of the alliance, and could be potentially restricted by roles. Each Sovereignty structure belonging to the alliance would be visible here, with the ability to filter and sort by distance, type and status. With this panel, alliances will be able to keep track of the real-time status of their active Sovereignty capture events to direct their forces where they will be most needed. OK so firstly please don't restrict by roles. That means in a small alliance only a handful of people will be able to see and they MUST watch it at all times during the vulnerability. It's not remotely immersive - if someone was bombing Los Angeles you wouldn't need Obama to physically check a Are My Cities Being Bombed screen for him to find out about it. Next I'd like something more creative with the UI. If somewhere in my constellation is being entosised please turn the constellation line in the top left of the screen orange. If my system is being entosised please turn the system name flashy orange, a nice rich shade of bonfire orange-red. My frikin space is burning down, I shouldn't need to check some spreadsheet to notice. (Remember capsuleers command ships with dozens or hundreds or thousands of crew members). I'd like those graphics also visible to third parties and findable on the starmap. I can find enemy cynos and go shoot them, I can find enemy ratters and go shoot them, but world war three breaks out at VFK and I have to drill down to some obscure window no one normally looks at? That's just dull. Sov conflict should breathe excitement through the UI. To add to usable UI:
It would be nice to allow players to drag and drop these type of timers to our alliances UI on these timers. So we can get some military overview of our situation as well as scouted enemy timers. I hate having to resort to so many 3rd party stuff for these small things that would be amazing to already be included in the game. Also please Tate the most recent information with the players name and date so leadership has a way to reward these scouts for a job well done. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10087
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:54:04 -
[2653] - Quote
Phig Neutron wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack.
Renters are in renter alliances that hold sov and are controlled by the 'landlord' alliance. For example. NCDot's renters are in NA., NCDot controls NA. via it's executor corp.
So yes, renters can defend their renter alliance's SOV.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10087
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:54:56 -
[2654] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. Big coaltions might hire mercs to patrol their space during prime time so they themselves can go do actual fun things like attack somone else's prime time in force. Renters are dumb, but they aren't THAT dumb. Even they'll figure out pretty quickly that the only reason to pay rent goes away the moment supercap fleet leases become unnecessary.
IHUBS
This was explained to you earlier. |
DaReaper
Net 7
1824
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:56:38 -
[2655] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:DaReaper wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Phig Neutron wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack. Interesting, so basically it will need the current renters to actually be part of the alliance that places the sovereignty units. So in short the renters will be doing the job that they are currently paying rent for, the defence of their space. Will they be negotiating to be paid a fee rather than paying one? That could be a nice additional source of income, but I can see that that could prove unpopular with those losing an income stream and having to pay instead. But is that the cost of retaining sovereignty? no, the renters will stop paying rent and take over their own space. paying rent is a racket anyway. Yes i've done it. but that was in '10 I think we can find a 3rd party to hold the isk if you'd like to bet some. I'm game if you are.
Naw, i have learned in my 11 years here are 34 on earth that humans are stupid. Most who pay rent, do so so they don;t get steam rolled. If say goonies sent a small fleet through renter space, most renters would fold. So i'm good.
In THEORY however, if the land lord is ignoring you, you stop paying rent.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1587
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:57:45 -
[2656] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:DaReaper wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Phig Neutron wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack. Interesting, so basically it will need the current renters to actually be part of the alliance that places the sovereignty units. So in short the renters will be doing the job that they are currently paying rent for, the defence of their space. Will they be negotiating to be paid a fee rather than paying one? That could be a nice additional source of income, but I can see that that could prove unpopular with those losing an income stream and having to pay instead. But is that the cost of retaining sovereignty? no, the renters will stop paying rent and take over their own space. paying rent is a racket anyway. Yes i've done it. but that was in '10 I think we can find a 3rd party to hold the isk if you'd like to bet some. I'm game if you are.
I am sure, that you are probably right, there is a great inertia with people, they stay with what they know, but I am sure many renters will be starting to ask, "what is in it for me" "why am I paying so someone far away can boast of a great Empire, when I am doing the defence now?"
I am sure that intimidation and fear will play a large part in retaining the income stream, but negotiations will most likely be much harder and much less friendly.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin. Black Legion.
2010
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:59:53 -
[2657] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: I am doing my damndest to catch up with this thread. But you lot keep writing faster than I can read. When I am full caught up I will start actual comments and answers but like ISD Ezwal, I am reading it all.
Every damn post.
m
Or...
Instead of reading all the posts happening now and gauging public opinion first as to how to spin what you did in the past, let people know now what your advice to CCP already WAS and to what level the CSM was consulted on this PRIOR to the dev blog announcement?
I think that's where people are disappointed with the CSM right now. We expected you guys to have immediate releases ready to go once the dev blog hit to say "we talked to CCP about this and we said 'X"', BEFORE seeing which way the wind is blowing...
Now you are just going to spin based on what public reaction is now, rather than divulge what your thought leadership with CCP was.
A pox on all of you.
Would you like to know more?
|
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1432
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:03:19 -
[2658] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Phig Neutron wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack. Interesting, so basically it will need the current renters to actually be part of the alliance that places the sovereignty units.well they are now, but what is in it for them? So in short the renters will be doing the job that they are currently paying rent for, the defence of their space. Will they be negotiating to be paid a fee rather than paying one? That could be a nice additional source of income, but I can see that that could prove unpopular with those losing an income stream and having to pay instead. But is that the cost of retaining sovereignty?
Renters are already members of the same alliance who bribe leadership to dodge CTAs. The name and logo are just superficial so the hosts can pretend they are warrior, or some thing. All you need to for them to give up the pretence and have the corps come in under the main alliance and continue the bribes, which will vary based on how many wand CTAs they did. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
705
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:03:44 -
[2659] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?
Small entities? There are small entities in sov under present day Dominion? This is news to me
Mike Azariah wrote: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. Neither have I seem any of the candidates for CSM sharing their opinions (except for Xenuria and he doesn't count). I want to know what the nullsec candidates in particular think about all this.
Manny, Endie, Corebloodbrothers - where are you?
I am doing my damndest to catch up with this thread. But you lot keep writing faster than I can read. When I am full caught up I will start actual comments and answers but like ISD Ezwal, I am reading it all. Every damn post. m
Oh you poor man... at least we can skip the long wall of text ones.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:03:59 -
[2660] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: I am doing my damndest to catch up with this thread. But you lot keep writing faster than I can read. When I am full caught up I will start actual comments and answers but like ISD Ezwal, I am reading it all.
Every damn post.
m
Or... Instead of reading all the posts happening now and gauging public opinion first as to how to spin what you did in the past, let people know now what your advice to CCP already WAS and to what level the CSM was consulted on this PRIOR to the dev blog announcement? I think that's where people are disappointed with the CSM right now. We expected you guys to have immediate releases ready to go once the dev blog hit to say "we talked to CCP about this and we said 'X"', BEFORE seeing which way the wind is blowing... Now you are just going to spin based on what public reaction is now, rather than divulge what your thought leadership with CCP was. A pox on all of you.
^ this is so true. |
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
395
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:05:01 -
[2661] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:IHUBS
This was explained to you earlier.
Yes, and countered.
Who will be defending the IHUBS on a daily basis? The renters. Who can flip the existing IHUBS with a single noobship over a couple of days with their sov laser if the landlord doesn't come down to defend the IHUB themselves? The renters. How many IHUB flips does NC. plan to contest once the entirety of NA. figures this out all at the same time? None. Maybe a couple. Certainly not all, or even most.
IHUBS are not so incredibly hard to place that it requires paying a couple of B a month to a landlord just for the privilege of already having one in place or letting a freighter through, once, to plant your own. It's an annoyance, sure, but you are putting one or two months of rent in ISK on the line to transport your own IHUB down there. It's not THAT hard to get a freighter through safely; certainly not so much that it will be a significant deterrent if it is literally the last thing preventing a renter from not having to pay several B a month.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1588
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:06:08 -
[2662] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Senyu Takashi wrote:
Minig belts? Making stuff and selling it on trade hubs? Allow line members and smaller corps in your alliance to own reaction POSes? How about industry, invention and ancient relic invention(since slots are gone there shouldnt be a problem with "not enough stations")? Maybe allowing neuts to dock in your stations and trade with you instead of just exporting moon goo?
You know, red crosses arent the only source of income in this game.
I don't run any alliance so none of that applies to me. "shooting red Xs" is the primary income making mechanic in null. "Do industry" is not a solution to the combat anomaly problems lol. Jenn you are very experienced in the Various sites and anomalies, across null. Would you be able to present to your CSM rep to pass to CCP, the sites, that have issues and problems, that either reward badly for the time taken, or unrealistically lengthen the time you require, with low reward exposed in space, and what about those sites are the issues, to allow the PVE team to resolve them one by one without having to hunt them out? This would benefit everyone operating in null to one degree or another, fairly improve the income, and help provide some carrot to go with the changes? Hope you do not mind me suggesting it. Fixed quoting. ISD Ezwal. don't mind at all and if someone wants to do that, I'll help. But CCP knows already. They can't not know. It is not so much a question of not knowing, it is getting approval for getting the time to look at specifics. If individual, clear reports on a site come in, one of the devs will be able to look exactly at that in a few spare minutes without being pulled of another project. And once they see exactly what you see, then things will get fixed. It is working with the realities of their life, rather than waiting for a large block of time and resources needed to look at everything.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
257
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:07:03 -
[2663] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: I am doing my damndest to catch up with this thread. But you lot keep writing faster than I can read. When I am full caught up I will start actual comments and answers but like ISD Ezwal, I am reading it all.
Every damn post.
m
Or... Instead of reading all the posts happening now and gauging public opinion first as to how to spin what you did in the past, let people know now what your advice to CCP already WAS and to what level the CSM was consulted on this PRIOR to the dev blog announcement? I think that's where people are disappointed with the CSM right now. We expected you guys to have immediate releases ready to go once the dev blog hit to say "we talked to CCP about this and we said 'X"', BEFORE seeing which way the wind is blowing... Now you are just going to spin based on what public reaction is now, rather than divulge what your thought leadership with CCP was. A pox on all of you.
Mike Azariah's CSM Candidacy wrote:I am Mike Azariah, Hisec resident...Carebear...Casual player...Northern Troll...Anarchist
I have a hunch about how he might have felt about this |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
705
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:07:08 -
[2664] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: It's very limited annoyance for the defender if he's locally based in the first place.
No one can base locally. That's the part everyone seems to be forgetting. You're also severely underestimating just how much trouble one dedicated camper can cause. The Tl;DR of a bunch of the earlier replies to me: "But Kaarous, the defender has forty minutes under perfectly ideal conditions to un reinforce it!" Yeah, I know. How many systems in the game actually merit maxed out indices? How many don't? The last number is a damn sight bigger than the first number. (nevermind that this is a huge underestimation of just how much trouble one guy with half a dozen cloaked alts will be able to cause) Unless this is accompanied by a full, and I mean full restructuring of personal level income in nullsec, it will be problematic. Without said full restructuring, it is unreasonable to expect people, plural, to live in and defend a single system when that system has worse income than slowboating highsec missions. (let alone the disgusting income of Incursions) Completely agree. Null incomes need to be changed. Instead of moons giving isk to the alliance execs to pad their wallets from the top down the isk should be made available to line members and distributed from the bottom up. If anyone is willing to actually post an uptodate value on those R32s and R64s by the way, just so we know how much income is never seen by the line members of those 40k strong alliances in this poor nullsec that we keep hearing about I'd love to hear it :)
Someone posted accurate numbers a few pages back, I dug up the post:
Soldarius wrote:
- Atmospheric Gases: -100M
- Evaporite Deposits: 641k
- Hydrocarbons: -95.1M
- Silicates: -51.4M
- Cobalt: 27.7M
- Scandium: 103M
- Titanium: 31.4M
- Tungsten: -54.9M
- Cadmium: 1.00B
- Chromium: 261M
- Platinum: 184M
- Vanadium: 185M
- Caesium: 421M
- Hafnium: 694M
- Mercury: 302M
- Technetium: 637M
- Dysprosium: 6.27B
- Neodymium: 1.83B
- Promethium: 2.05B
- Thulium: 1.77B
It's accurate based on my moon based activities as well. I bolded R64s, they really aren't that great anymore, Dyspro is the only really good one, the rest are notable but not that impressive. It's certainly not the income they used to be back in the day.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1825
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:09:33 -
[2665] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:DaReaper wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Phig Neutron wrote: As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack.
Interesting, so basically it will need the current renters to actually be part of the alliance that places the sovereignty units. So in short the renters will be doing the job that they are currently paying rent for, the defence of their space. Will they be negotiating to be paid a fee rather than paying one? That could be a nice additional source of income, but I can see that that could prove unpopular with those losing an income stream and having to pay instead. But is that the cost of retaining sovereignty? no, the renters will stop paying rent and take over their own space. paying rent is a racket anyway. Yes i've done it. but that was in '10 I think we can find a 3rd party to hold the isk if you'd like to bet some. I'm game if you are. I am sure, that you are probably right, there is a great inertia with people, they stay with what they know, but I am sure many renters will be starting to ask, "what is in it for me" "why am I paying so someone far away can boast of a great Empire, when I am doing the defence now?" I am sure that intimidation and fear will play a large part in retaining the income stream, but negotiations will most likely be much harder and much less friendly.
Back in '09 my alliance at the time came out of wormholes and we lived in outter ring with vanguard. Sometime before dominion hit, vanguard moved north and we stayed. Dominion hit and one of my directors grabbed space while i was at work (grr past) It happened to be evoke space, and they ignored us for about 2 days. Then came the 'pay up or we kill you' So we did. About a month later however, when it was time to pay rent again, we noticed Evoke was occupied, so we were debating on not paying. We also were gate camping, and not blue to evoke.. well... the leader of evoke came through out space and we killed him. That was a fun thing, but rent demanded again and new restitions added (honestly at the time evoke was being stupid) We then saw that atlas. had space for better money and goonies were sniffing around the area, so we bounced.
We were happily renting 3 systems paying our rent.. but we noticed renters aorund us being weaker then us, which is hard to do... so we thought about invading, but didn;t due to the rental contract. White noise, and the Drone russian collalition at the time invaded atlas, so we stopped paying rent and grabbed a few decent moons as atlas falled. WN came demanding more rent, and we were able to avoid that for a two months. Other stuff happened and we joined IRC (stupid decicion, long story.. but whatever) anyway, my point is, from my own experence, that as a renter if your land lord is busy or ignoring you, you start getting the urge to not pay rent. Then if the land lord notices you feeling liek you are getting too big for your britches, they just saber rattle and most people will cave.
Some of the renters might toss the big guys off. Then depending on what happens, say goon ignores one alliance in one system of there empire, this might embolden others. It could be a fun slaughter for goons and other land lords though, to cull the alliances that think they can stand on our own. So no jenna, a bet i won;t make, cause at this point i'm not sure what way is for sure. Depending on how things shape up, the human need for safty and a perminate home might start being conflicted in renters. So who knows.
yes i rambled, deal with it
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
257
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:10:24 -
[2666] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Someone posted accurate numbers a few pages back, I dug up the post: Soldarius wrote:
- Atmospheric Gases: -100M
- Evaporite Deposits: 641k
- Hydrocarbons: -95.1M
- Silicates: -51.4M
- Cobalt: 27.7M
- Scandium: 103M
- Titanium: 31.4M
- Tungsten: -54.9M
- Cadmium: 1.00B
- Chromium: 261M
- Platinum: 184M
- Vanadium: 185M
- Caesium: 421M
- Hafnium: 694M
- Mercury: 302M
- Technetium: 637M
- Dysprosium: 6.27B
- Neodymium: 1.83B
- Promethium: 2.05B
- Thulium: 1.77B
It's accurate based on my moon based activities as well. I bolded R64s, they really aren't that great anymore, Dyspro is the only really good one, the rest are notable but not that impressive. It's certainly not the income they used to be back in the day. Damn you now I have to get my spreadsheet on!
Ty tho really |
Maximus Andendare
The Scope Gallente Federation
921
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:12:29 -
[2667] - Quote
The prime time idea really needs to be reevaluated. Structures/Sov needs to be attackable at any time of the day, with the structures/Sov coming out of RF during the corp's prime time. Then, the owning corp would be at an advantage (since more of their members will be present, presumably), while the aggressor would be at a seeming disadvantage (as their prime times may be different). But keeping Sov safe for many hours of the day is boring and asinine.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! <<
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1825
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:14:10 -
[2668] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Someone posted accurate numbers a few pages back, I dug up the post: Soldarius wrote:
- Atmospheric Gases: -100M
- Evaporite Deposits: 641k
- Hydrocarbons: -95.1M
- Silicates: -51.4M
- Cobalt: 27.7M
- Scandium: 103M
- Titanium: 31.4M
- Tungsten: -54.9M
- Cadmium: 1.00B
- Chromium: 261M
- Platinum: 184M
- Vanadium: 185M
- Caesium: 421M
- Hafnium: 694M
- Mercury: 302M
- Technetium: 637M
- Dysprosium: 6.27B
- Neodymium: 1.83B
- Promethium: 2.05B
- Thulium: 1.77B
It's accurate based on my moon based activities as well. I bolded R64s, they really aren't that great anymore, Dyspro is the only really good one, the rest are notable but not that impressive. It's certainly not the income they used to be back in the day. Damn you now I have to get my spreadsheet on! Ty tho really
And this is why moon need to be ACTIVE mined. Not mined with pos.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Snoodaard Thrasy
Yulai Guard Yulai Federation
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:14:11 -
[2669] - Quote
Been thinking about this, and I still think you absolutely need to retain some kind of SBU type module. You gotta have more warning as a sov holder. Otherwise sov holders everywhere are going to be the non-stop go-to content machine for everyone and his grandmother. Wanna have fun on Saturday? Find a low-index pipe system, reinforce it with a well-rounded small gang or just send 30 Entosis ships in and you're set in 48 hours. Great for those looking for a fight, an absolute hellish headache for sov holders everywhere.
So, allow for more warning for sov holders with an SBU-like module while making it still easy to actually reinforce something.
After all, the barrier for actually sov warfare was never the SBU's, but the necessary structure grinding, surely? Removing structure grind will force sov holders to defend their space and undefended space easy to take (the intention of this change?) while removing the SBU-mechanic makes sov space farm space, and that is not what sov should be about. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
705
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:15:30 -
[2670] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Someone posted accurate numbers a few pages back, I dug up the post: Soldarius wrote:
- Atmospheric Gases: -100M
- Evaporite Deposits: 641k
- Hydrocarbons: -95.1M
- Silicates: -51.4M
- Cobalt: 27.7M
- Scandium: 103M
- Titanium: 31.4M
- Tungsten: -54.9M
- Cadmium: 1.00B
- Chromium: 261M
- Platinum: 184M
- Vanadium: 185M
- Caesium: 421M
- Hafnium: 694M
- Mercury: 302M
- Technetium: 637M
- Dysprosium: 6.27B
- Neodymium: 1.83B
- Promethium: 2.05B
- Thulium: 1.77B
It's accurate based on my moon based activities as well. I bolded R64s, they really aren't that great anymore, Dyspro is the only really good one, the rest are notable but not that impressive. It's certainly not the income they used to be back in the day. Damn you now I have to get my spreadsheet on! Ty tho really
Np, if you use google docs there's a way to have the price autoupdate, someone in the S&I forum might be able to help better than I. Mine is a ripoff of an alliance-mate's.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1588
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:15:34 -
[2671] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Phig Neutron wrote: As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack.
Interesting, so basically it will need the current renters to actually be part of the alliance that places the sovereignty units. So in short the renters will be doing the job that they are currently paying rent for, the defence of their space. Will they be negotiating to be paid a fee rather than paying one? That could be a nice additional source of income, but I can see that that could prove unpopular with those losing an income stream and having to pay instead. But is that the cost of retaining sovereignty? I am sure, that you are probably right, there is a great inertia with people, they stay with what they know, but I am sure many renters will be starting to ask, "what is in it for me" "why am I paying so someone far away can boast of a great Empire, when I am doing the defence now?" I am sure that intimidation and fear will play a large part in retaining the income stream, but negotiations will most likely be much harder and much less friendly. Back in '09 my alliance at the time came out of wormholes and we lived in outter ring with vanguard. Sometime before dominion hit, vanguard moved north and we stayed. Dominion hit and one of my directors grabbed space while i was at work (grr past) It happened to be evoke space, and they ignored us for about 2 days. Then came the 'pay up or we kill you' So we did. About a month later however, when it was time to pay rent again, we noticed Evoke was occupied, so we were debating on not paying. We also were gate camping, and not blue to evoke.. well... the leader of evoke came through out space and we killed him. That was not a fun thing, but rent demanded again and new restitions added (honestly at the time evoke was being stupid) We then saw that atlas. had space for better money and goonies were sniffing around the area, so we bounced. We were happily renting 3 systems paying our rent.. but we noticed renters aorund us being weaker then us, which is hard to do... so we thought about invading, but didn;t due to the rental contract. White noise, and the Drone russian collalition at the time invaded atlas, so we stopped paying rent and grabbed a few decent moons as atlas falled. WN came demanding more rent, and we were able to avoid that for a two months. Other stuff happened and we joined IRC (stupid decicion, long story.. but whatever) anyway, my point is, from my own experence, that as a renter if your land lord is busy or ignoring you, you start getting the urge to not pay rent. Then if the land lord notices you feeling liek you are getting too big for your britches, they just saber rattle and most people will cave. Some of the renters might toss the big guys off. Then depending on what happens, say goon ignores one alliance in one system of there empire, this might embolden others. It could be a fun slaughter for goons and other land lords though, to cull the alliances that think they can stand on our own. So no jenna, a bet i won;t make, cause at this point i'm not sure what way is for sure. Depending on how things shape up, the human need for safty and a perminate home might start being conflicted in renters. So who knows. yes i rambled, deal with it
Interesting, So I imagine with the new sov, you and others you have connections with as renters, will be re-evaluating the terms and conditions at the least, and considering freedom and independence, as opposed to continuing the rental relationship.
This could turn out to be the most significant area of the new changes, particuarly if the current sov holders are relying on you to provide your own defence?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
573
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:17:17 -
[2672] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:this is hilarious
if a person fucks with blues, they get kicked from alliance and blacklisted
the existing punishment mechanic works plenty fine here You know why that works now? Because the only people that can feasibly **** with blues are cap and supercap pilots, which is a small fraction of the alliance. Further, they actually have to put very expensive ships on the line to do it, and the result will be getting those ships either welped by the enemy or simply popped by blues as punishment before they kick you out in very embarrassing, very expensive killmails. After the change? Every single one of your line members flying cheap subcaps can go do this. They won't need SRP, they won't care if they welp the fleet, and if you kick them out, I'm curious to know who is going to actually do the work of defending YOUR sov every day? You were counting on those line members living in each system to login 4 hours a day and defensive E-link on demand. You think your small % of supercap pilots are going to pick up the slack after you've kicked out 50% of the subcap line members who wanted to get actual fights once in a while without having to fly all the way down to Provi? no
not at all
you have no frame of reference for the thing you are discussing
here is a real-life scenario
i go postal and take out some blues who are ratting
if i don't reimburse them, i get kicked from gsf and put on a cfc-wide blacklist
the punishment for even the smallest infractions regarding messing with blues is your ass is grass
i don't know how to explain it more simply than that
i mean i get that where you come from, organizational affiliation is a joke at best, but goons are pretty serious about it |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30771
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:23:17 -
[2673] - Quote
Confirming blue backstabbing is the most explicitly defined cardinal sin.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
400
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:24:03 -
[2674] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:The prime time idea really needs to be reevaluated. Structures/Sov needs to be attackable at any time of the day, with the structures/Sov coming out of RF during the corp's prime time. Then, the owning corp would be at an advantage (since more of their members will be present, presumably), while the aggressor would be at a seeming disadvantage (as their prime times may be different). But keeping Sov safe for many hours of the day is boring and asinine.
Everyone complaining about prime time is missing the entire point of prime time and this change to sov.
This entire mechanic exists to give the defenders a compelling reason to undock and engage you when you bring your fleets through. The WHOLE REASON it's built this way is so that roaming skirmish subcap fleets will now pose a very real threat to expensive sov infrastructure (IHUBS & stations in particular). You want fights? You take 30 cruisers into your neighbor's space and start reinforcing things until they undock a fleet and give you a fight. They can no longer just turtle up and ignore you unless they are willing to let all their sov burn. At BEST they can ignore you today, but definitely not when you come back for the constellation contest.
Being able to do this outside of their TZ defeats the entire purpose. The whole point is to give a reason for defenders to HAVE to engage subcap fleets. If you just roam through their space off-hours and start flipping things when no-one is around, it does nothing to provoke fights. The idea is to make sov harassment/warfare a permanent, daily thing that is used to provoke "gudfites".
The actual process of intentionally taking sov to hold and keep will be as rare as ever, and that's the ONLY time being able to start a timer off-TZ would be strategically useful. And frankly, it adds practically nothing to that particular use case to be able to start the initial timer off the defensive TZ. Either you bring a fleet large enough to win grid control today, or you do it two days later when the constellation contest starts; either way you aren't getting out of a fleet fight in that TZ if you actually want that sov for yourself. Forcing the initial flip into that TZ too is a tiny fraction of the effort you will be putting into these REAL sov battles. |
Perkin Warbeck
Black Watch Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
191
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:24:29 -
[2675] - Quote
Okay posting in the whine thread when I promised myself I wouldn't.
My two main issues are:
1. Capturing and defending sovereignty looks and feels similar to the FW model. It's wrong on so many levels. After experiencing the rate at which systems can be flipped and spending the best part of a year chasing stabbed frigates out of FW plexes in Sahtogas, I can testify that it is the most God awful, soul crushing gameplay you can imagine. There is a reason FW is best experienced when you don't actually live in the war zone and a reason why so many established corps have left.
2. The four hour window. I get the reasons for it but it kind of leaves the Aussies up the billabong without a didgeridoo. |
Drogo Drogos
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:24:30 -
[2676] - Quote
Hordes of ceptors / frigs will burn trough each region just to anoy the living **** ouf of the sov holders.
Having sov is already a pain and 90% of each region is already bad living in, only a handfull of systems are considered good in a whole region.
To defend your space from attackers you have to make alot of effort and there is no slacking to be done here for the defender or they lose their space and their indexes. Hope people are going to enjoy their CTA's to chase down fast frigs and ceptors days and weeks and months without pause.
Sov warfare should be a serious undertaking, not a copy paste from FW with a few gimmicks attached to it. Not a lone 1 million ship who can flip a system, this isnt some kiddy garden crap CCP.....come on
What about all those guys who trained years for their supers and titans ? they get reimbursed ? What is the reason for these vessels to stay subbed ?
i can already tell that most capital pilots will unsub and it wont take long before the folks who own SOV get fed up with all the CTA's around the clock to say enough is enough.
What Nullsec needs is CONFLICT, less structure grinding and more PEWPEW without the need to bash billions of HP. A system needs to support more people as right now if you have more then 7 people ratting in system you bumb into each other and steal each others hubs.
I can make better isk in incursions in HISEC ! a delicious 150mil per hour ! risk free ! no CTA's ! just plain liquid 150 million per hour isk without all the hassle that SOV takes from me. This has to change, i mean seriously.....
If you going to revamp sov mechenics then dont do it this way... Design a special ship that needs to equip the Estosis or let only Command Ships do this so at least there is a purpose to use these useless vessels again.
I cannot express how this new sov mechenics are going to be anoying and drive tons of people back to low / hisec instead of pulling them out of those regions and be part of nullsec.
Sov battles need to contain risk and stuff on the line, sov needs to be high end game design were you can be proud to own sov and if you want to take it you drop your balls on the table or gtfo.
Please ccp.....Not like this....
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
260
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:27:05 -
[2677] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Eli Apol wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Someone posted accurate numbers a few pages back, I dug up the post: Soldarius wrote:
- Atmospheric Gases: -100M
- Evaporite Deposits: 641k
- Hydrocarbons: -95.1M
- Silicates: -51.4M
- Cobalt: 27.7M
- Scandium: 103M
- Titanium: 31.4M
- Tungsten: -54.9M
- Cadmium: 1.00B
- Chromium: 261M
- Platinum: 184M
- Vanadium: 185M
- Caesium: 421M
- Hafnium: 694M
- Mercury: 302M
- Technetium: 637M
- Dysprosium: 6.27B
- Neodymium: 1.83B
- Promethium: 2.05B
- Thulium: 1.77B
It's accurate based on my moon based activities as well. I bolded R64s, they really aren't that great anymore, Dyspro is the only really good one, the rest are notable but not that impressive. It's certainly not the income they used to be back in the day. Damn you now I have to get my spreadsheet on! Ty tho really Np, if you use google docs there's a way to have the price autoupdate, someone in the S&I forum might be able to help better than I. Mine is a ripoff of an alliance-mate's. It's fine, I copy pasta'd straight from dotlan for the (known) moon counts and it comes to about 4 trillion/month just for the ones that break bank - of course there's then significant discounts for those that would be running a POS in that system but don't have one of the really big earners to hand and just use it to cover partial fuel costs and of course there's huge swathes of null that aren't in dotlans statistics at all...
That's a LOT of iskies in moon goo that most line members never get to touch. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
214
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:28:46 -
[2678] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:That's a LOT of iskies in moon goo that most line members never get to touch. Except for those who get SRP. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1590
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:33:09 -
[2679] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Eli Apol wrote:That's a LOT of iskies in moon goo that most line members never get to touch. Except for those who get SRP.
There must naturally be a lot of costs involved in that, just a question? Do the renters get paid a ship replacement policy? And if not would it be realistic to say, that if they are now primarily responsible for their own defence initially, that would be considered reasonable?
I am just trying to get a feeling for the wider impact of these sov changes other than the initial short term.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Snoodaard Thrasy
Yulai Guard Yulai Federation
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:33:49 -
[2680] - Quote
Drogo Drogos wrote:
Please ccp.....Not like this....
I was going to quote parts of your post, but it's entirely spot on! Rather than making sov desirable these changes would make it the biggest headache in game.
The thing is, it's not that hard to fix. It's not like it's entirely terrible. Many concur with the goals of the changes, it just misses the target by making contesting sov so easy that it's not about making a home for your alliance in nullsec anymore, but about a tedious back and forth where nobody will be interested in being the actual sov holder and defender very soon.
|
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:33:49 -
[2681] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Eli Apol wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Someone posted accurate numbers a few pages back, I dug up the post: Soldarius wrote:
- Atmospheric Gases: -100M
- Evaporite Deposits: 641k
- Hydrocarbons: -95.1M
- Silicates: -51.4M
- Cobalt: 27.7M
- Scandium: 103M
- Titanium: 31.4M
- Tungsten: -54.9M
- Cadmium: 1.00B
- Chromium: 261M
- Platinum: 184M
- Vanadium: 185M
- Caesium: 421M
- Hafnium: 694M
- Mercury: 302M
- Technetium: 637M
- Dysprosium: 6.27B
- Neodymium: 1.83B
- Promethium: 2.05B
- Thulium: 1.77B
It's accurate based on my moon based activities as well. I bolded R64s, they really aren't that great anymore, Dyspro is the only really good one, the rest are notable but not that impressive. It's certainly not the income they used to be back in the day. Damn you now I have to get my spreadsheet on! Ty tho really Np, if you use google docs there's a way to have the price autoupdate, someone in the S&I forum might be able to help better than I. Mine is a ripoff of an alliance-mate's. It's fine, I copy pasta'd straight from dotlan for the (known) moon counts and it comes to about 4 trillion/month just for the ones that break bank - of course there's then significant discounts for those that would be running a POS in that system but don't have one of the really big earners to hand and just use it to cover partial fuel costs and of course there's huge swathes of null that aren't in dotlans statistics at all... That's a LOT of iskies in moon goo that most line members never get to touch.
a) nobody puts a small tower on a r64 moon b) siphons c) every line members gets in touch with it, it's called SRP - ever seen the SRP bills of alliances? d) if it's so much isk, why do alliances rent out space?
It's not like there are 4 trillion of ISKs flowing into the pockets of 1 guy. It's divided up between lowsec/nullsec entities, fought over, needs to be transported, manufactured, etc.
Yes, it's a lot of isks but considering how many hands it's running through and the monthy upkeep + strategic/logistic work done... not that great. If you feel like it, go take a hit at a lowsec r64 and check for yourself how much fun it is to have one! |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
707
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:35:21 -
[2682] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Eli Apol wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Someone posted accurate numbers a few pages back, I dug up the post: Soldarius wrote:
- Atmospheric Gases: -100M
- Evaporite Deposits: 641k
- Hydrocarbons: -95.1M
- Silicates: -51.4M
- Cobalt: 27.7M
- Scandium: 103M
- Titanium: 31.4M
- Tungsten: -54.9M
- Cadmium: 1.00B
- Chromium: 261M
- Platinum: 184M
- Vanadium: 185M
- Caesium: 421M
- Hafnium: 694M
- Mercury: 302M
- Technetium: 637M
- Dysprosium: 6.27B
- Neodymium: 1.83B
- Promethium: 2.05B
- Thulium: 1.77B
It's accurate based on my moon based activities as well. I bolded R64s, they really aren't that great anymore, Dyspro is the only really good one, the rest are notable but not that impressive. It's certainly not the income they used to be back in the day. Damn you now I have to get my spreadsheet on! Ty tho really And this is why moon need to be ACTIVE mined. Not mined with pos.
I think what those moon values shows is that Dyspro needs to be more common. The region I live in has about half a dozen Thuliums, not a singlee Dyspro or Neo moon.
Moving moon mining away from POS's would remove the last combative POS content, but it would probably be for the best. Maybe make it scannable like gas.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
196
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:38:46 -
[2683] - Quote
Drogo Drogos wrote:I can make better isk in incursions in HISEC ! a delicious 150mil per hour ! risk free ! no CTA's ! just plain liquid 150 million per hour isk without all the hassle that SOV takes from me. This has to change, i mean seriously.....
Again quoting for emphasis. These changes may create a need to be active in your own space, but not a reason to be.
Line members must have a reason to care.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
263
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:38:55 -
[2684] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:a) nobody puts a small tower on a r64 moon b) siphons c) every line members gets in touch with it, it's called SRP - ever seen the SRP bills of alliances? d) if it's so much isk, why do alliances rent out space?
It's not like there are 4 trillion of ISKs flowing into the pockets of 1 guy. It's divided up between lowsec/nullsec entities, fought over, needs to be transported, manufactured, etc.
Yes, it's a lot of isks but considering how many hands it's running through and the monthy upkeep + strategic/logistic work done... not that great. If you feel like it, go take a hit at a lowsec r64 and check for yourself how much fun it is to have one! Oh I'm fully aware of this, I just needed a rough figure to bounce around when people are saying that nullsec is so poor at the moment. I mean the 4T across the whole of New Eden is a definite lowball estimate if you check the coverage percentages on dotlan as well. I'm not saying it's all going into Mittens pockets directly buuuut I'm also quite sure he doesn't do much afktar-ing either when he needs a new ship to whelp.
As I say, it's top down income - would be far more interesting to have industry guys actively mining that stuff and have a bottom up process. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
708
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:39:17 -
[2685] - Quote
Perkin Warbeck wrote:Okay posting in the whine thread when I promised myself I wouldn't.
My two main issues are:
1. Capturing and defending sovereignty looks and feels similar to the FW model. It's wrong on so many levels. After experiencing the rate at which systems can be flipped and spending the best part of a year chasing stabbed frigates out of FW plexes in Sahtogas, I can testify that it is the most God awful, soul crushing gameplay you can imagine. There is a reason FW is best experienced when you don't actually live in the war zone and a reason why so many established corps have left.
2. The four hour window. I get the reasons for it but it kind of leaves the Aussies up the billabong without a didgeridoo.
1. The frigates can't just warp away in the sov situation, they have to finish their cycle first. Also, there's no cap on the size of the ships brought, so I'm not forced into frigates in many situations.
2. I can't argue with this because analogy is too amusing.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
125
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:41:18 -
[2686] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
LMAO , you know you lost this fight right? you've exposed yor ignorance to everyone here (not knowing the stats for curators, not knowing how to use EFT, not understanding the mechanics of aggro),
I mean damn, all this because you are in denial about afk cloaking? That's incredibly sad. If you had an honest bone in your body you'd try the ship for yourself, see that it works, and come back to these forums and admit your mistake.
i won't be replying to another of your posts, everyone can see who is right here.
First, yes, I forgot a neut on. Secondly, after bringing that capstable nonsense fit, do you still talk? The facts doesn't change - you will not clear a haven in this. This is a trollfit and it's silly how sensitive you are to calling a problem a problem.
If this fit is your "counter", then please stop embarrassing yourself. Not only you will lose it, you are better off in throwaway vexor than in this.
As I asked your troll butt a few times before, which system do you fly this pathetic sausage in? I'm willing to educate you that you're never going to survive a hotdrop. The fact you lied and went full stupid with claiming that this misfit could clear haven is obvious to anyone anyway.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1590
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:42:07 -
[2687] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:DaReaper wrote:Eli Apol wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Someone posted accurate numbers a few pages back, I dug up the post: Soldarius wrote:
- Atmospheric Gases: -100M
- Evaporite Deposits: 641k
- Hydrocarbons: -95.1M
- Silicates: -51.4M
- Cobalt: 27.7M
- Scandium: 103M
- Titanium: 31.4M
- Tungsten: -54.9M
- Cadmium: 1.00B
- Chromium: 261M
- Platinum: 184M
- Vanadium: 185M
- Caesium: 421M
- Hafnium: 694M
- Mercury: 302M
- Technetium: 637M
- Dysprosium: 6.27B
- Neodymium: 1.83B
- Promethium: 2.05B
- Thulium: 1.77B
It's accurate based on my moon based activities as well. I bolded R64s, they really aren't that great anymore, Dyspro is the only really good one, the rest are notable but not that impressive. It's certainly not the income they used to be back in the day. Damn you now I have to get my spreadsheet on! Ty tho really And this is why moon need to be ACTIVE mined. Not mined with pos. I think what those moon values shows is that Dyspro needs to be more common. The region I live in has about half a dozen Thuliums, not a singlee Dyspro or Neo moon. Moving moon mining away from POS's would remove the last combative POS content, but it would probably be for the best. Maybe make it scannable like gas.
That is really interesting, players mining the moon materials, would certainly increase the opportunities for players to increase their personal incomes, quite a few players have suggested this as a good idea. What would be the down sides though? Would it put to much pressure on the null Empires, if a primary income source was removed?
It certainly would play towards the declared goals of the Sov rebalance, but would it be too much? Too soon? And would hurting the Empire holders be in the best interest of the game? That could unleash a firestorm that would be quite traumatic for many.
The effects of this release are going to be greater than any of us realised at first. Wow.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
574
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:42:24 -
[2688] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:That's a LOT of iskies in moon goo that most line members never get to touch. please tell us how alliance finances are run |
DaReaper
Net 7
1827
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:43:16 -
[2689] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Interesting, So I imagine with the new sov, you and others you have connections with as renters, will be re-evaluating the terms and conditions at the least, and considering freedom and independence, as opposed to continuing the rental relationship?
This could turn out to be the most significant area of the new changes, particuarly if the current sov holders are relying on you to provide your own defence?
I remember a quote from the foundation trilogy, that Empires collapse from the periphery. As they need to consolidate, the periphery takes it's independance. I wonder if the new sov means we are exiting the age of Null empires.
I am sure, every renter corp will be starting to ask these questions, and like pandora's box once open what is released and seen can never be shoved back into the box and forgotten.
Exciting times.
Edit:- I may have messed up quoting apologies if so.
This is usually what happens daily. It also depends on who is in the alliance. My alliance was a 600 man mostly industrial alliance with maybe 50 pure pvpers tossed in. Thouse 50 pvpers kept asking 'why are we paying rent? why are we letting this small alliance next to us survive?" things like that. It was a weekly "because we can not survive on our own" and it got worse if the 50 happen to win a small pvp match. Then when you had the miners getting mad that they could nto fan out and mine, you got more pressure to expand and kill the dudes next door. All the while you see your land lord flexing its muscle. And once time, again while in atlas. space, one of there renters decided to not pay rent, and atlas. reset them. and all the renters did as well. by the end of the day that alliance was slaughtered, as the wolves of the renters came in and killed them. Which again led to talks of 'lets stop paying rent and be on our own!' This happens alot in renter and small alliances. So it sa constant evaluation. And if you get invaded and your land lord does nothing... well then you REALLY get the pressure of 'f*** them"
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
263
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:44:42 -
[2690] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:That's a LOT of iskies in moon goo that most line members never get to touch. please tell us how alliance finances are run I'll just hazard a guess that those R64 POS are complete deathstars set to shoot on sight absolutely everyone and only 2 people ever have the password... if it's not like that then you're probably doing something wrong...
amirite? |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15394
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:44:43 -
[2691] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:a) nobody puts a small tower on a r64 moon b) siphons c) every line members gets in touch with it, it's called SRP - ever seen the SRP bills of alliances? d) if it's so much isk, why do alliances rent out space?
It's not like there are 4 trillion of ISKs flowing into the pockets of 1 guy. It's divided up between lowsec/nullsec entities, fought over, needs to be transported, manufactured, etc.
Yes, it's a lot of isks but considering how many hands it's running through and the monthy upkeep + strategic/logistic work done... not that great. If you feel like it, go take a hit at a lowsec r64 and check for yourself how much fun it is to have one! Oh I'm fully aware of this, I just needed a rough figure to bounce around when people are saying that nullsec is so poor at the moment. I mean the 4T across the whole of New Eden is a definite lowball estimate if you check the coverage percentages on dotlan as well. I'm not saying it's all going into Mittens pockets directly buuuut I'm also quite sure he doesn't do much afktar-ing either when he needs a new ship to whelp. As I say, it's top down income - would be far more interesting to have industry guys actively mining that stuff and have a bottom up process.
I don't get any of it.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10090
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:45:22 -
[2692] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:
Naw, i have learned in my 11 years here are 34 on earth that humans are stupid. Most who pay rent, do so so they don;t get steam rolled. If say goonies sent a small fleet through renter space, most renters would fold. So i'm good.
Damn, I could used an extra 10 million isk, grrr.
Quote: In THEORY however, if the land lord is ignoring you, you stop paying rent.
Exactly
But your post illustrates something that is important here. Ideally, renters would 'rise up' against their 'masters' and throw the bums out. That would make for exciting game play. But that is the thinking of an 'ideal person' . No such person exists. Real humans are messy.
REAL people say they want exciting game play, but they end up seeking comfort and convenience. Many an alliance fell because it's pilots left the game or stayed in the game and went 'carebear'. It's another one of those human nature things, and why this new sov system and this discussion in general wil probably not have the desired results:
http://uxmyths.com/post/746610684/myth-21-people-can-tell-you-what-they-want
Quote: In his TED Talk on spaghetti sauces, Malcolm Gladwell argues that the food industry made a big mistake asking people about their preferences and conducting focus groups. Gladwell says that GÇ£The mind knows not what the tongue wants. [GǪ] If I asked all of you, for example, in this room, what you want in a coffee, you know what youGÇÖd say? Every one of you would say GÇÿI want a dark, rich, hearty roast.GÇÖ ItGÇÖs what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast! What percentage of you actually like a dark, rich, hearty roast? According to Howard, somewhere between 25 and 27 percent of you. Most of you like milky, weak coffee. But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want GÇö that GÇÿI want a milky, weak coffee.GÇÖGÇ¥
When someone asks us what we want (or what gameplay we think would be fun) we always say shooting and conflict. Give the average EVE player what he says he wants and watch them end up not wanting it lol.
Many a renter talks a good game about what they would do if they didn't have to worry about super caps dropping on them, but they will keep renting because they really want comfort and for someone else to move that damn IHUB.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1591
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:47:14 -
[2693] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Interesting, So I imagine with the new sov, you and others you have connections with as renters, will be re-evaluating the terms and conditions at the least, and considering freedom and independence, as opposed to continuing the rental relationship?
This could turn out to be the most significant area of the new changes, particuarly if the current sov holders are relying on you to provide your own defence?
I remember a quote from the foundation trilogy, that Empires collapse from the periphery. As they need to consolidate, the periphery takes it's independance. I wonder if the new sov means we are exiting the age of Null empires.
I am sure, every renter corp will be starting to ask these questions, and like pandora's box once open what is released and seen can never be shoved back into the box and forgotten.
Exciting times.
Edit:- I may have messed up quoting apologies if so.
This is usually what happens daily. It also depends on who is in the alliance. My alliance was a 600 man mostly industrial alliance with maybe 50 pure pvpers tossed in. Thouse 50 pvpers kept asking 'why are we paying rent? why are we letting this small alliance next to us survive?" things like that. It was a weekly "because we can not survive on our own" and it got worse if the 50 happen to win a small pvp match. Then when you had the miners getting mad that they could nto fan out and mine, you got more pressure to expand and kill the dudes next door. All the while you see your land lord flexing its muscle. And once time, again while in atlas. space, one of there renters decided to not pay rent, and atlas. reset them. and all the renters did as well. by the end of the day that alliance was slaughtered, as the wolves of the renters came in and killed them. Which again led to talks of 'lets stop paying rent and be on our own!' This happens alot in renter and small alliances. So it sa constant evaluation. And if you get invaded and your land lord does nothing... well then you REALLY get the pressure of 'f*** them"
Thank you very much, that answers my question wonderfully clearly. This is going to be much more of a reset of the map than I first imagined, CCP have definately got their Mojo back, and interesting times ahead. So many people are going to be challenging so many assumptions, and nothing will be the same again.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
711
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:48:56 -
[2694] - Quote
Drogo Drogos wrote: Having sov is already a pain and 90% of each region is already bad living in, only a handfull of systems are considered good in a whole region.
Great, so hold sov in 10% of the region, and you don't have to worry about holding the other 90%! Let random people have the other 90% and let the PVPers in your alliance farm them for kills. Best of both worlds, good carebearing, local PVP.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
264
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:50:19 -
[2695] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:no
if you actually knew how POS worked, you'd know that you can set permissions such that only people with roles can empty the silos
then you don't hand out those roles except to the logisticians Sorry my bad, been a few years since I was in a position to give out POS roles and never did moon goo so didn't even glance at those ones - C5 WH life without moon goo :S |
DaReaper
Net 7
1827
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:53:22 -
[2696] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:DaReaper wrote:
And this is why moon need to be ACTIVE mined. Not mined with pos.
I think what those moon values shows is that Dyspro needs to be more common. The region I live in has about half a dozen Thuliums, not a singlee Dyspro or Neo moon. Moving moon mining away from POS's would remove the last combative POS content, but it would probably be for the best. Maybe make it scannable like gas. That is really interesting, players mining the moon materials, would certainly increase the opportunities for players to increase their personal incomes, quite a few players have suggested this as a good idea. What would be the down sides though? Would it put to much pressure on the null Empires, if a primary income source was removed? It certainly would play towards the declared goals of the Sov rebalance, but would it be too much? Too soon? And would hurting the Empire holders be in the best interest of the game? That could unleash a firestorm that would be quite traumatic for many. The effects of this release are going to be greater than any of us realised at first. Wow.
Read my signature as an idea. But people complain about null not havign income. If all the moons were depleted and appeared in a revamped belt, you would have more people mining the ore form said belt, more targets to hit. Dysp, prom, and tech now become like ABC ore. Rare, but you can find it in belts all over. This would only be possible with a pos revamp, where pos' do more then act as moon mining platforms. This also would mean that, in theory, alliance X would need less space. As they coudl gather all the T2 resources they need in a much smaller area. Like a constalation. No need to sit on empty systems because you need that system for the two dysp moons, and you only touch the system once every week to get yoru ore, and fuel the pos.
In addition, alliances coudl then tax the moon ore as now it would need to be refined, and then if you added say reactions to stations (again, pos revamp needed) you coudl tax the reactions. Now the economy starts to shift form a top down to a top up.
The disadvantage is to the alliance leadership. As a dysp moon (fudging numbers only an exsample) brings in a garenteed 5b a month. That money can be counted on like clock work if you have a good logistics network. The other way though, you have to relay on your miners to refine in yoru stations and react in yoru stations, so you can sell the excess.
But to a line man, this gets you more iskies, and to a pvp roaming space, this gives a chance for a good fight. And this also means your mining index will be used and you will use the space you own.
Passive moon mining needs to die.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1591
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:55:26 -
[2697] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:DaReaper wrote:
Naw, i have learned in my 11 years here are 34 on earth that humans are stupid. Most who pay rent, do so so they don;t get steam rolled. If say goonies sent a small fleet through renter space, most renters would fold. So i'm good.
Damn, I could used an extra 10 million isk, grrr. Quote: In THEORY however, if the land lord is ignoring you, you stop paying rent.
Exactly But your post illustrates something that is important here. Ideally, renters would 'rise up' against their 'masters' and throw the bums out. That would make for exciting game play. But that is the thinking of an 'ideal person' . No such person exists. Real humans are messy. REAL people say they want exciting game play, but they end up seeking comfort and convenience. Many an alliance fell because it's pilots left the game or stayed in the game and went 'carebear'. It's another one of those human nature things, and why this new sov system and this discussion in general wil probably not have the desired results: http://uxmyths.com/post/746610684/myth-21-people-can-tell-you-what-they-want Quote: In his TED Talk on spaghetti sauces, Malcolm Gladwell argues that the food industry made a big mistake asking people about their preferences and conducting focus groups. Gladwell says that GÇ£The mind knows not what the tongue wants. [GǪ] If I asked all of you, for example, in this room, what you want in a coffee, you know what youGÇÖd say? Every one of you would say GÇÿI want a dark, rich, hearty roast.GÇÖ ItGÇÖs what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast! What percentage of you actually like a dark, rich, hearty roast? According to Howard, somewhere between 25 and 27 percent of you. Most of you like milky, weak coffee. But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want GÇö that GÇÿI want a milky, weak coffee.GÇÖGÇ¥
When someone asks us what we want (or what gameplay we think would be fun) we always say shooting and conflict. Give the average EVE player what he says he wants and watch them end up not wanting it lol. Many a renter talks a good game about what they would do if they didn't have to worry about super caps dropping on them, but they will keep renting because they really want comfort and for someone else to move that damn IHUB. You are most likely right, but interesting, I imagine the Empire leaders will try to enforce the rental agreements with a rod of Iron to ensure compliance, but I do wonder, whether those rental corps, far from the centre, will notice the ships of their landlords, less and less visible, and start to wonder, what life would be like if they didn't have to keep those agreements? And just how fast that would spread? Only time will tell, but very very interesting possibilities. I didn't visualise this when I first heard of the changes.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
711
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:56:59 -
[2698] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: That is really interesting, players mining the moon materials, would certainly increase the opportunities for players to increase their personal incomes, quite a few players have suggested this as a good idea. What would be the down sides though? Would it put to much pressure on the null Empires, if a primary income source was removed?
It certainly would play towards the declared goals of the Sov rebalance, but would it be too much? Too soon? And would hurting the Empire holders be in the best interest of the game? That could unleash a firestorm that would be quite traumatic for many.
The effects of this release are going to be greater than any of us realised at first. Wow.
Alliances would need a new income source before moons can be removed as a top up source.
There's still cost associated with sov, and generally running an alliance (Titan POS's, jump bridges, sov maintenance costs, logistics etc.), which line members don't like to open their wallets to. So some new income stream would be needed at an alliance level.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
857
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:00:00 -
[2699] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:it doesn't have to beat the orthrus, just not die to it until the artosis link finishes the job
also i do like that you are having to use a 280m ship and 750m of implants to kill a 20m frig with an 80m module Or I could use a cheapass cruiser and block the link.... Stop the melodrama. Interceptors threaten sprawling, indefensible empires. NOTHING MORE. Stop being bad, stop derailing with FUD about "trollceptors" and maybe we can all get a decent future. These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. the inteceptor then shrugs, burns off grid, and hits another node or sov structure, and cannot be stopped if the pilot uses a shred of intellect while burning around a region you can't bridge around them due to fatigue, you can't warp faster than them, and outside of serious pilot error, they cannot be caught while traveling stop focusing on the individual fight (especially since you are bad at theorycrafting them) Again, an empire of APPROPRIATE SIZE will give zero craps about this. Funny that.
Please define "empire of appropriate size."
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1828
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:00:54 -
[2700] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:DaReaper wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Interesting, So I imagine with the new sov, you and others you have connections with as renters, will be re-evaluating the terms and conditions at the least, and considering freedom and independence, as opposed to continuing the rental relationship?
This could turn out to be the most significant area of the new changes, particuarly if the current sov holders are relying on you to provide your own defence?
I remember a quote from the foundation trilogy, that Empires collapse from the periphery. As they need to consolidate, the periphery takes it's independance. I wonder if the new sov means we are exiting the age of Null empires.
I am sure, every renter corp will be starting to ask these questions, and like pandora's box once open what is released and seen can never be shoved back into the box and forgotten.
Exciting times.
Edit:- I may have messed up quoting apologies if so.
This is usually what happens daily. It also depends on who is in the alliance. My alliance was a 600 man mostly industrial alliance with maybe 50 pure pvpers tossed in. Thouse 50 pvpers kept asking 'why are we paying rent? why are we letting this small alliance next to us survive?" things like that. It was a weekly "because we can not survive on our own" and it got worse if the 50 happen to win a small pvp match. Then when you had the miners getting mad that they could nto fan out and mine, you got more pressure to expand and kill the dudes next door. All the while you see your land lord flexing its muscle. And once time, again while in atlas. space, one of there renters decided to not pay rent, and atlas. reset them. and all the renters did as well. by the end of the day that alliance was slaughtered, as the wolves of the renters came in and killed them. Which again led to talks of 'lets stop paying rent and be on our own!' This happens alot in renter and small alliances. So it sa constant evaluation. And if you get invaded and your land lord does nothing... well then you REALLY get the pressure of 'f*** them" Thank you very much, that answers my question wonderfully clearly. This is going to be much more of a reset of the map than I first imagined, CCP have definately got their Mojo back, and interesting times ahead. So many people are going to be challenging so many assumptions, and nothing will be the same again.
Well this depends. A land lord could easily keep a tight fist on their renters. Its why i won't bet a huge revolt. Its WAY to early. For all i know, small alliances might go 'yes hat sounds too hard... naw i'm good paying' . But if you base it solely on human nature... then you can see there is a possibility for a shake up and chaos.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
711
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:01:45 -
[2701] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:it doesn't have to beat the orthrus, just not die to it until the artosis link finishes the job
also i do like that you are having to use a 280m ship and 750m of implants to kill a 20m frig with an 80m module Or I could use a cheapass cruiser and block the link.... Stop the melodrama. Interceptors threaten sprawling, indefensible empires. NOTHING MORE. Stop being bad, stop derailing with FUD about "trollceptors" and maybe we can all get a decent future. These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. the inteceptor then shrugs, burns off grid, and hits another node or sov structure, and cannot be stopped if the pilot uses a shred of intellect while burning around a region you can't bridge around them due to fatigue, you can't warp faster than them, and outside of serious pilot error, they cannot be caught while traveling stop focusing on the individual fight (especially since you are bad at theorycrafting them) Again, an empire of APPROPRIATE SIZE will give zero craps about this. Funny that. Please define "empire of appropriate size."
One big enough to have active members in all (read: spread out over most) of the systems they own. That can be 100 or 100,000, it depends how many systems they are trying to hold. A hundred (active) guys could likely hold a constellation, 100,000 could likely keep multiple regions safe.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin. Black Legion.
2013
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:01:51 -
[2702] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: I am doing my damndest to catch up with this thread. But you lot keep writing faster than I can read. When I am full caught up I will start actual comments and answers but like ISD Ezwal, I am reading it all.
Every damn post.
m
Or... Instead of reading all the posts happening now and gauging public opinion first as to how to spin what you did in the past, let people know now what your advice to CCP already WAS and to what level the CSM was consulted on this PRIOR to the dev blog announcement? I think that's where people are disappointed with the CSM right now. We expected you guys to have immediate releases ready to go once the dev blog hit to say "we talked to CCP about this and we said 'X"', BEFORE seeing which way the wind is blowing... Now you are just going to spin based on what public reaction is now, rather than divulge what your thought leadership with CCP was. A pox on all of you. Mike Azariah's CSM Candidacy wrote:I am Mike Azariah, Hisec resident...Carebear...Casual player...Northern Troll...Anarchist I have a hunch about how he might have felt about this
I'm not just singling out mike here. The minutes on sov discussions that were redacted in the minutes must now be released, so the community can weigh 'what value csm', or 'what value csm member X'
Would you like to know more?
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1828
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:02:30 -
[2703] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: That is really interesting, players mining the moon materials, would certainly increase the opportunities for players to increase their personal incomes, quite a few players have suggested this as a good idea. What would be the down sides though? Would it put to much pressure on the null Empires, if a primary income source was removed?
It certainly would play towards the declared goals of the Sov rebalance, but would it be too much? Too soon? And would hurting the Empire holders be in the best interest of the game? That could unleash a firestorm that would be quite traumatic for many.
The effects of this release are going to be greater than any of us realised at first. Wow.
Alliances would need a new income source before moons can be removed as a top up source. There's still cost associated with sov, and generally running an alliance (Titan POS's, jump bridges, sov maintenance costs, logistics etc.), which line members don't like to open their wallets to. So some new income stream would be needed at an alliance level.
There is a simple fix to this. An alliance tax would fix a huge chunk of this. get a 5% tax on ALL income sources and you are good.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Locke DieDrake
The Arrow Project
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:06:33 -
[2704] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:
Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again.
1. Your idea that this Svipul would "just warp" seems to forget the fact that it can't warp for 2 minutes at a time. 2. http://i.imgur.com/waJhtx5.png Yes, i misspoke and edited my post, he would simply have to burn away until warpoff timer expired. That naga fit wont hit at all either.
Three sniper eagles deployed correctly can hit anything, going any speed. The fact that you don't know how to do this is your problem.
Anyone that cares to can remove your sovscrewer ship from the grid with no more than 3 HACs.
Forgetting entirely that a newb ship with a sovlaser can completely invalidate your ship in the first place. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
575
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:07:47 -
[2705] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:One big enough to have active members in all (read: spread out over most) of the systems they own. That can be 100 or 100,000, it depends how many systems they are trying to hold. A hundred (active) guys could likely hold a constellation, 100,000 could likely keep multiple regions safe. so you should need 100 guys to be able to hold 5 systems eh |
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:09:42 -
[2706] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: That is really interesting, players mining the moon materials, would certainly increase the opportunities for players to increase their personal incomes, quite a few players have suggested this as a good idea. What would be the down sides though? Would it put to much pressure on the null Empires, if a primary income source was removed?
It certainly would play towards the declared goals of the Sov rebalance, but would it be too much? Too soon? And would hurting the Empire holders be in the best interest of the game? That could unleash a firestorm that would be quite traumatic for many.
The effects of this release are going to be greater than any of us realised at first. Wow.
Alliances would need a new income source before moons can be removed as a top up source. There's still cost associated with sov, and generally running an alliance (Titan POS's, jump bridges, sov maintenance costs, logistics etc.), which line members don't like to open their wallets to. So some new income stream would be needed at an alliance level.
Whats the big deal? Corps have tax rates...
But of course it is much convenient for the moon owners to have a steady source of income, that only a small restricted circle has access to and proper information about. That way, ISK and the power to do big things trickles down top to bottom, just as in real life...
But I'm afraid this is drifting off topic....
In the dev blog, Fozzie stated:
Quote:This system of occupancy defensive bonuses is intentionally built to be modular and adjustable. In future iterations of the Sovereignty system we plan to refine the process for measuring activity, including expanding what kinds of activities are counted towards the bonuses.
I think it would be important for CCP to come up with a new expanded and refined way to measure occupancy really fast. I'm under the impression that there is a HUGE mechanical and/or psychological difference between 10 min and 40 min capture times... I would like to see several activity indices adding up to a total bonus. I think it would be important to cap that total bonus, so that you don't need to grind certain types of gameplay, just to get your maxed out def bonus. |
DaReaper
Net 7
1828
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:09:52 -
[2707] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:DaReaper wrote:
Naw, i have learned in my 11 years here are 34 on earth that humans are stupid. Most who pay rent, do so so they don;t get steam rolled. If say goonies sent a small fleet through renter space, most renters would fold. So i'm good.
Damn, I could used an extra 10 million isk, grrr. Quote: In THEORY however, if the land lord is ignoring you, you stop paying rent.
Exactly But your post illustrates something that is important here. Ideally, renters would 'rise up' against their 'masters' and throw the bums out. That would make for exciting game play. But that is the thinking of an 'ideal person' . No such person exists. Real humans are messy. REAL people say they want exciting game play, but they end up seeking comfort and convenience. Many an alliance fell because it's pilots left the game or stayed in the game and went 'carebear'. It's another one of those human nature things, and why this new sov system and this discussion in general wil probably not have the desired results: http://uxmyths.com/post/746610684/myth-21-people-can-tell-you-what-they-want Quote: In his TED Talk on spaghetti sauces, Malcolm Gladwell argues that the food industry made a big mistake asking people about their preferences and conducting focus groups. Gladwell says that GÇ£The mind knows not what the tongue wants. [GǪ] If I asked all of you, for example, in this room, what you want in a coffee, you know what youGÇÖd say? Every one of you would say GÇÿI want a dark, rich, hearty roast.GÇÖ ItGÇÖs what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast! What percentage of you actually like a dark, rich, hearty roast? According to Howard, somewhere between 25 and 27 percent of you. Most of you like milky, weak coffee. But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want GÇö that GÇÿI want a milky, weak coffee.GÇÖGÇ¥
When someone asks us what we want (or what gameplay we think would be fun) we always say shooting and conflict. Give the average EVE player what he says he wants and watch them end up not wanting it lol. Many a renter talks a good game about what they would do if they didn't have to worry about super caps dropping on them, but they will keep renting because they really want comfort and for someone else to move that damn IHUB.
Not all, my alliance used to use wormholes and move our own ihub.. we pissed off the renters next door couse we would use there wh's but meh.
But your point is very valid. I met A LOT of alliances that were totally happy paying rent, as long as they coudl mine or rat they did not care.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1591
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:14:16 -
[2708] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: That is really interesting, players mining the moon materials, would certainly increase the opportunities for players to increase their personal incomes, quite a few players have suggested this as a good idea. What would be the down sides though? Would it put to much pressure on the null Empires, if a primary income source was removed?
It certainly would play towards the declared goals of the Sov rebalance, but would it be too much? Too soon? And would hurting the Empire holders be in the best interest of the game? That could unleash a firestorm that would be quite traumatic for many.
The effects of this release are going to be greater than any of us realised at first. Wow.
Alliances would need a new income source before moons can be removed as a top up source. There's still cost associated with sov, and generally running an alliance (Titan POS's, jump bridges, sov maintenance costs, logistics etc.), which line members don't like to open their wallets to. So some new income stream would be needed at an alliance level. There is a simple fix to this. An alliance tax would fix a huge chunk of this. get a 5% tax on ALL income sources and you are good. It seems like a big step though, i'll naturally leave the discussion of that to others, outside my area, but still facinating seeing just how many ripples, and how strong they are , even before the release of the sovereignty changes.
Certainly no assumptions can be made as to how it turns out, but personally I am impressed with the new thought process CCP are adopting of changing the tools, to make them in the control of individual groups of players, and let the player base decide what sort of universe they want to live in, rather than just one that is almost predetermined.
It is a facinating time, and I genuinely wish the whole of nullsec the very best of success in creating one that you are happy and thriving in.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2553
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:15:52 -
[2709] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).
Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.
Or, you know, that the CSM is under NDA, which means they can't tell you if they were consulted and/or agree with it.
we were consulted.
I do agree with most of it. But if I am not your rep maybe you should be ringing up the ones you do think represent you.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
278
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:20:49 -
[2710] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:That's a LOT of iskies in moon goo that most line members never get to touch. please tell us how alliance finances are run I'll just hazard a guess that those R64 POS are complete deathstars set to shoot on sight absolutely everyone and only 2 people ever have the password... if it's not like that then you're probably doing something wrong... amirite?
Yeah, because deathstars set to shoot absolutely everyone on sight are really friendly to logistics fleets there to rep them up.
And if you mean 'everyone who isn't blue', well, all our towers do that. |
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
278
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:22:13 -
[2711] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I don't get any of it.
That's because you fly megathrons in every fleet!
(seriously, you should see this guy's fit for harpyfleet. It's a thing of crazy, crazy beauty.)
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3978
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:25:04 -
[2712] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules: 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
265
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:26:15 -
[2713] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Yeah, because deathstars set to shoot absolutely everyone on sight are really friendly to logistics fleets there to rep them up.
And if you mean 'everyone who isn't blue', well, all our towers do that. I've set a POS to kill anything on grid that's not inside it before - just thought you'd do that because of siphon units tbh - could easily be disabled in the case that you need to rep it. |
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:26:24 -
[2714] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: I'm not just singling out mike here. The minutes on sov discussions that were redacted in the minutes must now be released, so the community can weigh 'what value csm', or 'what value csm member X'
I do believe this is relevant, and hope the minutes are put out sooner rather than later. Knowing the back and forth and where CSM members stood, is important with only 5 days left in the election.
CCP, please release the minutes before the election is over.
Harry Saq for CSM X
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1829
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:29:01 -
[2715] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Arrendis wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).
Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.
Or, you know, that the CSM is under NDA, which means they can't tell you if they were consulted and/or agree with it. we were consulted. I do agree with most of it. But if I am not your rep maybe you should be ringing up the ones you do think represent you. m *snip* post was deleted by isd, i self edited. Dude was pretty much making assumptions
And you are incorrect*? Why are you incorrect*? Well i'll be more then happy to tell you.
Unless mike was suddenly given complete and total power in every choice that was made to hs, like he was in charge.
Because.. just so you know. The CSM has NO power to make changes, decisioins, or directions to ANYTHING in eve unless CCP lets them.
I'll repeat...
the CSM has ZERO power. They advise. That is the full extent of who they are. CCP can ignore them or agree. Thats it. Thats all the CSM is. So mike screwed nothing up. If you think HS is messed up, blame ccp. and voice to mike why you thinks its wrong, so he can gather your voice with others and present it to ccp as a unified package. Because thats all the CSM can do.
*edited my own post due to isd deleting the one i quoted, i figured less work for isd is good.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Schwein Hosen
DuckPus Fightclub
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:31:19 -
[2716] - Quote
Since apparently some people are actually taking the time to read every post, I'll weigh in however briefly:
It's not that bad of a system, though my first reaction was: I'm glad I'm not in a leadership position and won't have to actually figure this out. Much like figuring out how to handle your corp's logistics is important, but not really something anyone wants to do, this system will work (with some refinements), but it won't be enjoyable to learn or figure out how to optimize.
The other big thing is I think you are underestimating the troll factor with making the timer only 2 minutes. It feels like sov will be way more annoying to keep now, and since there are few benefits to having it anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if this change makes the system almost unused for legitimate purposes as compared to today.
So basically, I recommend making it more fun and less annoying. |
DaReaper
Net 7
1829
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:34:53 -
[2717] - Quote
Harry Saq wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: I'm not just singling out mike here. The minutes on sov discussions that were redacted in the minutes must now be released, so the community can weigh 'what value csm', or 'what value csm member X'
I do believe this is relevant, and hope the minutes are put out sooner rather than later. Knowing the back and forth and where CSM members stood, is important with only 5 days left in the election. CCP, please release the minutes before the election is over.
there are no minutes for this. you will not see the private communication between ccp and csm. Otherwise it defeats the whole point of the csm
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
278
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:35:34 -
[2718] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:The one responsible for the sorry state of hisec speaks up. I hope you never get elected again.
Yeah, that's fair. Highsec's been trending this way for a decade. Clearly, it's all his fault. Hordes of bitching afk-miners and missioners had nothing to do with it. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:37:40 -
[2719] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:it doesn't have to beat the orthrus, just not die to it until the artosis link finishes the job
also i do like that you are having to use a 280m ship and 750m of implants to kill a 20m frig with an 80m module Or I could use a cheapass cruiser and block the link.... Stop the melodrama. Interceptors threaten sprawling, indefensible empires. NOTHING MORE. Stop being bad, stop derailing with FUD about "trollceptors" and maybe we can all get a decent future. These phantom interceptors threats are nothing short of a nonsense if you live in your space. the inteceptor then shrugs, burns off grid, and hits another node or sov structure, and cannot be stopped if the pilot uses a shred of intellect while burning around a region you can't bridge around them due to fatigue, you can't warp faster than them, and outside of serious pilot error, they cannot be caught while traveling stop focusing on the individual fight (especially since you are bad at theorycrafting them) Again, an empire of APPROPRIATE SIZE will give zero craps about this. Funny that. Please define "empire of appropriate size." EG; the group your alliance pay homage to - would be considered "appropriate size"
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
279
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:37:54 -
[2720] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Yeah, because deathstars set to shoot absolutely everyone on sight are really friendly to logistics fleets there to rep them up.
And if you mean 'everyone who isn't blue', well, all our towers do that. I've set a POS to kill anything on grid that's not inside it before - just thought you'd do that because of siphon units tbh - could easily be disabled in the case that you need to rep it.
Why bother? If a blue is siphoning from the Coalition, he'll find himself removed and hunted out of our space. Anyone else, it's already shooting at. |
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:38:04 -
[2721] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Harry Saq wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: I'm not just singling out mike here. The minutes on sov discussions that were redacted in the minutes must now be released, so the community can weigh 'what value csm', or 'what value csm member X'
I do believe this is relevant, and hope the minutes are put out sooner rather than later. Knowing the back and forth and where CSM members stood, is important with only 5 days left in the election. CCP, please release the minutes before the election is over. there are no minutes for this. you will not see the private communication between ccp and csm. Otherwise it defeats the whole point of the csm
There are indeed: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=399720&find=unread
Harry Saq for CSM X
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1830
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:40:04 -
[2722] - Quote
Harry Saq wrote:DaReaper wrote:Harry Saq wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: I'm not just singling out mike here. The minutes on sov discussions that were redacted in the minutes must now be released, so the community can weigh 'what value csm', or 'what value csm member X'
I do believe this is relevant, and hope the minutes are put out sooner rather than later. Knowing the back and forth and where CSM members stood, is important with only 5 days left in the election. CCP, please release the minutes before the election is over. there are no minutes for this. you will not see the private communication between ccp and csm. Otherwise it defeats the whole point of the csm There are indeed: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=399720&find=unread
oh.. yea they won;t go back and edit that though.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:41:11 -
[2723] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:That's a LOT of iskies in moon goo that most line members never get to touch. please tell us how alliance finances are run I'll just hazard a guess that those R64 POS are complete deathstars set to shoot on sight absolutely everyone and only 2 people ever have the password... if it's not like that then you're probably doing something wrong... amirite? Yeah, because deathstars set to shoot absolutely everyone on sight are really friendly to logistics fleets there to rep them up. And if you mean 'everyone who isn't blue', well, all our towers do that. Actually most high end moons seem to have:
- Caldari Large tower for maximum shiel
- One moon harvester
- 14-17 shield hardeners
- Three silos to cause the API exploit to auto-detect siphons
- One medium/small gun to kill the siphons
What this does is raise the bar to reinforce the tower. These are called Dickstars. Because notifications are immediate, any attack would need to have a massive amount of firepower to reinforce the tower before the owners rallied their coalition to hot drop them. Even still, the ability to time the stront is another safe guard. Sure you might reinforce the tower without being wiped out, but to come back and face the might of their entire coalition and win? You require coalition level forces. Three silos also has the benefit of not being required to maintain the tower with fuel and emptying the goo that often. You can go three weeks without having to do it. Outside of logging in the assigned stront alt (hello account sharing) to shoot silos; maintaining a high end too moon is incredibly easy and massively profitable. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1592
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:41:37 -
[2724] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Deleting the post quoting the deleted post so ISD doesn't have to.
Well, Mike is hardly responsible for the development timetable. Possibly after CCP have spent their time on Nullsec, and hopefully you have a vibrant alive space, where you have control of your own destiny and future, they can move onto hisec.
Hopefully they can achieve that there too once the development time is free to do that.
And As Mike has a reputation as a reasonable and thoughtful man, he will be able to apply his talents. I wish him success with CSM voting, and hope he is available for that job, and it is a Job, unpaid, and his efforts and work are appreciated by some, hopefully many.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
266
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:42:50 -
[2725] - Quote
TLDR:
MOST OF THIS SESSION IS CURRENTLY WORK IN PROGRESS DISCUSSION WITH THE CSM, AS SUCH IT HIS HELD UNDER NDA UNTIL DEV BLOGS ARE PREPARED FOR RELEASE ONCE FEATURES ARE FINALIZED
:D |
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
626
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:42:59 -
[2726] - Quote
Humans are generally predictable. They hate change. Sure they'll gripe about how bad things are, but when it comes to actual change, they dislike it and instead learn to cope with the current state of affairs. The new sov changes are scary for some people. These are the people that have learned to just "deal" with it and the idea that they may have to re-learn the sov system and adapt is frustrating. Where some may see scary change, others see exciting new opportunity. I proposed a similar idea with "central hubs" and "nodes" being used in order to make 0.0 sov mechanics more varied and so this version is very close to my liking.
Unfortunately the ones that see new opportunity are far out numbered by the other group, the people that see the new sov changes as the end of Eve online and the final reason they need to write out their sad "i'm quitting Eve" threads. But don't give up just yet, read on. Perhaps you're one of the people that see the future in a positive light or perhaps you're one of the naysayers on the brink of running a blade up and down your arm. I'm going to tell you why many of the criticisms presented are simply illogical.
One argument I've been reading both here at EN24, TMC and the Eve forums is that now a single interceptor will throw the entire sov mechanic into a hellspin of wack-a-mole. The attacker now has all the advantages and the defender has none. A lone interceptor will now go from system to system like a busy little bee collecting the nectar of tears from our flowery faced nullsec residents. But how right are they?
This game is not divided between "attacker" and "defender." It's made up of different alliances, coalitions, corps, and entities, all of which have just as much potential to play either role. So if you're afraid of having your entire space empire relegated to the history books, well what is stopping you from doing the same to your enemy? Nothing! Everyone is just as capable at fitting up a ceptor and doing the same thing.
Even if you are stuck as the defender, and the enemy has burned several jumps into your home system (which by the way is an advantage to the defender) why couldn't you as the defender simply hop out with your own Entosis moduled ship and negate your enemy? It's an equal hardship for both sides, the attacker doesn't gain any advantage. In fact it is harder for them because they already traversed several systems to get to their target where as you simply hit the undock button, hit "orbit" and activated the module.
You can actually catch the ceptor. Before you start spouting off EFT fittings of your 10,000,000,000 KM Stilleto, relax for a second and realize you as the defender can fit the exact same thing. What's more, you can also fit in implants that make you go even faster than your attacker. Your attacker may also fit those implants but it's unlikely they're going to risk a head full of highgrades just to troll your sov. But let's imagine that he does, and you're both going the exact same speed and you just can't catch the damn ceptor yourself. Well you have one further advantage: fleet boosts. Yes you can fit your favorite speed boosting T3/Commandship and catch up to your aggressor, something your aggressor is unlikely to try. And if they do, well isn't this YOUR system? Get some buddies to probe out the enemy boosts and go kill it.
But what if the enemy brings several ceptors and i'm all by myself? Obviously your alliance doesn't do enough to occupy the region. Maybe you don't deserve to own sov here, and your enemy which has actually brought people has. How the hell can you allow a gang of ships to fly through your space and you not fight it?
Another argument is that 0.0 is about big ship battles! What is this Faction Warfare? I didn't join up in 0.0 to fight with Rifters and Tristans. I'm here to see hundreds of capitals and big ships duking it out!
Conflicts will escalate. The attacker will bring a lone ceptor, in response the defender will bring his own combat ceptor + friends and catch and drive out the attacker. The attacker will now attempt to ship up to something bigger, perhaps AHACs. In response the defender drops capitals to which the attacker, if he wants to press forward, will respond the same. So you know what the big surprise is? 0.0 is still about big fleets. That doesn't change. The difference now is that N+1 isn't the end all be all of 0.0 warfare. After you attack the initial system and force vulnerability in the rest of the constellation, fleets are going to have to divide and be more varied. Multiple skirmish FC will coordinate different attacks in different regions.
This won't just be a revolution concerning how sov mechanics work, but the entire social aspect of the game itself. Players are no longer going to wait for a particular main line FC to call up all the capital ships in order for anything relevant to happen. Their small gang frig roams won't be irrelevant any longer. Now a group of 10 friends flying cruisers and frigs are both meaningful tools of attack AND defense. Now when those small gangs go out, it'll actually matter. If you bring your group of 10 friends and your enemy doesn't undock their gang, they're going to lose their territory. This alone will introduce so much more content into 0.0 It's baffling how anyone can have these fallacious doom and gloom predictions.
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:44:00 -
[2727] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Harry Saq wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: I'm not just singling out mike here. The minutes on sov discussions that were redacted in the minutes must now be released, so the community can weigh 'what value csm', or 'what value csm member X'
I do believe this is relevant, and hope the minutes are put out sooner rather than later. Knowing the back and forth and where CSM members stood, is important with only 5 days left in the election. CCP, please release the minutes before the election is over. there are no minutes for this. you will not see the private communication between ccp and csm. Otherwise it defeats the whole point of the csm There should NEVER be private communication between CSM and CCP when it concerns game development. CSM are there simply to represent us the players - Everything said should be made available to US the players.
If not, the csm elections is a waste as they can say and do as they please, so the only ones who would have any input with csm would be the blok leaders who get them elected.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:44:16 -
[2728] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Harry Saq wrote:DaReaper wrote:Harry Saq wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: I'm not just singling out mike here. The minutes on sov discussions that were redacted in the minutes must now be released, so the community can weigh 'what value csm', or 'what value csm member X'
I do believe this is relevant, and hope the minutes are put out sooner rather than later. Knowing the back and forth and where CSM members stood, is important with only 5 days left in the election. CCP, please release the minutes before the election is over. there are no minutes for this. you will not see the private communication between ccp and csm. Otherwise it defeats the whole point of the csm There are indeed: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=399720&find=unread oh.. yea they won;t go back and edit that though.
They probably took notes just as they did for issues like ship skinning and the Eve-O website design, they just didn't release them.
The high level as is already there for other issues would give enough flavor as to who was engaged and opinions/feedback given etc. We can atleast know if the issues we are discussing here have already discussed etc.
Harry Saq for CSM X
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1833
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:49:07 -
[2729] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:DaReaper wrote:Harry Saq wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: I'm not just singling out mike here. The minutes on sov discussions that were redacted in the minutes must now be released, so the community can weigh 'what value csm', or 'what value csm member X'
I do believe this is relevant, and hope the minutes are put out sooner rather than later. Knowing the back and forth and where CSM members stood, is important with only 5 days left in the election. CCP, please release the minutes before the election is over. there are no minutes for this. you will not see the private communication between ccp and csm. Otherwise it defeats the whole point of the csm There should NEVER be private communication between CSM and CCP when it concerns game development. CSM are there simply to represent us the players - Everything said should be made available to US the players. If not, the csm elections is a waste as they can say and do as they please, so the only ones who would have any input with csm would be the blok leaders who get them elected.
*bashes his head into the desk*
Do you REALLY not understand what the CSM is? Honestly? They really do NOT represent the player. They are an advisory council that gathers player information and gives it to ccp. Thats IT. Communication through CSM is ONE way. And one way only. Thats why they are NDA'd. There job is not to report what ccp is doing. There job is to report the likly reactions of players, and to bring up issues that need to be addressed with a unified voice to ccp. That is it. Nothing more. With a few exceptions, they did have a hand on a change a few years ago as an expariment, that went really well, but i don; think they did anything else sense.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
280
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:50:31 -
[2730] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Arrendis wrote:Deleting the post quoting the deleted post so ISD doesn't have to. Well, Mike is hardly responsible for the development timetable. Possibly after CCP have spent their time on Nullsec, and hopefully you have a vibrant alive space, where you have control of your own destiny and future, they can move onto hisec. Hopefully they can achieve that there too once the development time is free to do that. And As Mike has a reputation as a reasonable and thoughtful man, he will be able to apply his talents. I wish him success with CSM voting, and hope he is available for that job, and it is a Job, unpaid, and his efforts and work are appreciated by some, hopefully many.
That was kinda the gist of my point, that Mike might be on the CSM, but the state of highsec is hardly his doing. |
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1592
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:51:38 -
[2731] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:DaReaper wrote:Harry Saq wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: I'm not just singling out mike here. The minutes on sov discussions that were redacted in the minutes must now be released, so the community can weigh 'what value csm', or 'what value csm member X'
I do believe this is relevant, and hope the minutes are put out sooner rather than later. Knowing the back and forth and where CSM members stood, is important with only 5 days left in the election. CCP, please release the minutes before the election is over. there are no minutes for this. you will not see the private communication between ccp and csm. Otherwise it defeats the whole point of the csm There should NEVER be private communication between CSM and CCP when it concerns game development. CSM are there simply to represent us the players - Everything said should be made available to US the players. If not, the csm elections is a waste as they can say and do as they please, so the only ones who would have any input with csm would be the blok leaders who get them elected. Be fair now, most of the work is done outside of the formal meetings, chats with the devs, visits to the pub at lunchtime, while catching a quick coffe or cigarette. No one can really expect all that to be parted out to the player base.
We trust the CSM to represent us, If they are working hard, we need to believe that they are doing that job, and trust their actions and motives.
We certainly have the right to know if they are lazy, ineffectual, or unworthy, for the next elections. But for better or worse, we voted for them, and as unpaid representatives, if they are fair reasonable and hard working ANYTHING else we get is pure bonus.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:00:12 -
[2732] - Quote
I'd totally be game for moon resources to be harvestable in 0.0 anoms (to be scanned down like gas sites) and removing moon goo as POS thing - (introducing an alliance-tax would be a good thing in general, like alliance bm's). On the other hand this also means that r64s are no conflict/content creator anymore (I'd love it, no more pos grinds).
The ones who complain loudest about moon goo and their money income don't seem to uptodate or not remotely familiar with the actual business of dealing with moon goo and alliance finances. Every decent 0.0 alliance is doing SRP, staging towers, sov upkeep costs, upgrades, sbu/tcu/ihub upgrades whatever, stuff that costs money, loads of it. Moons help cover this plus some extra for alliance logistics and whatever. Given the amount of work done by those people and the FCs, my personal opinion is - let them have the ISKs. It's not like it's incredibly hard as line member to make a living in 0.0.
But to get back to topic - all these things mentioned are part of the problem, if these new changes happen this way then people won't put down billions over billions of isks to live down there, to stock markets, to fly several doctrines. You can tell from the many responses of 0.0 guys in here that people want to see a change, a more fun way to fight over sov space without huge blobs and constant grinds. I'm still hoping that CCP can think of a better way than this current proposal to change 0.0 in a meaningful way that encourages smaller and newer entities to venture to 0.0 - but also makes it interesting for older players with big toys to participate in this and resub, not crush these bittervets and their soonTM supercraps.
Tweak the numbers of the Entosis links, maybe require multiple hostile links, deploy low-HP structures that can be taken care of by small capable groups but not lonely players trying to annoy. Basically just read what players have thought about for years and find a way incorporate this in a new model. Don't just make 0.0 a huge FW zone, FW has its place and role - in lowsec, leave it there. |
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:01:57 -
[2733] - Quote
Big three issues so far...
1. Inty Entosis 2. Prime Time 3. We have now gotten two sticks, where's the carrot (otherwise known as incentive to even live in null)
Did I leave anything out? That seems to be the primary feedback so far.
Harry Saq for CSM X
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
630
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:04:28 -
[2734] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
The ONLY thing ceptors should have to do with the new sov mechanics - scouting and tackle, that is their role that is what they should do. No sov module (offensive or defensive) should be able to be fitted to anything smaller than a battlecruiser, it should have a fuel requirement, PG and CPU requirements as well.
Why shouldn't small ships play a role? Why not counter them with your small ships (or bigger ships?)
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1833
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:04:31 -
[2735] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:I'd totally be game for moon resources to be harvestable in 0.0 anoms (to be scanned down like gas sites) and removing moon goo as POS thing - (introducing an alliance-tax would be a good thing in general, like alliance bm's). On the other hand this also means that r64s are no conflict/content creator anymore (I'd love it, no more pos grinds).
The ones who complain loudest about moon goo and their money income don't seem to uptodate or not remotely familiar with the actual business of dealing with moon goo and alliance finances. Every decent 0.0 alliance is doing SRP, staging towers, sov upkeep costs, upgrades, sbu/tcu/ihub upgrades whatever, stuff that costs money, loads of it. Moons help cover this plus some extra for alliance logistics and whatever. Given the amount of work done by those people and the FCs, my personal opinion is - let them have the ISKs. It's not like it's incredibly hard as line member to make a living in 0.0.
But to get back to topic - all these things mentioned are part of the problem, if these new changes happen this way then people won't put down billions over billions of isks to live down there, to stock markets, to fly several doctrines. You can tell from the many responses of 0.0 guys in here that people want to see a change, a more fun way to fight over sov space without huge blobs and constant grinds. I'm still hoping that CCP can think of a better way than this current proposal to change 0.0 in a meaningful way that encourages smaller and newer entities to venture to 0.0 - but also makes it interesting for older players with big toys to participate in this and resub, not crush these bittervets and their soonTM supercraps.
Tweak the numbers of the Entosis links, maybe require multiple hostile links, deploy low-HP structures that can be taken care of by small capable groups but not lonely players trying to annoy. Basically just read what players have thought about for years and find a way incorporate this in a new model. Don't just make 0.0 a huge FW zone, FW has its place and role - in lowsec, leave it there.
Honest question... when was the last time an R64 moon was a conflict driver? You have the OTECH and other agreements by the big 3. AFAIK there have not been any major battles over moon goo in YEARS
Hell not that along ago i was syphoning from a goon r64 that had no guns on it.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1592
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:04:31 -
[2736] - Quote
Allow me to put it this way, consider the interceptors as initial tackle , if they are uninterrupted, it means an empty system, or one that is weakly held.
If this is succsessful we enter the reinforcement phase where everyone can bring their big guns to the fight. If not, they are killed or go on to the next potential weakness.
Effectively, they are just scouts that probe for weak spots, and activate the process where real battle takes place.
Would you use a capital or even a battlecruiser as a scout? Where it can be trivially blocked by the most ineffectual gatecamp far from the point to be scouted?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
267
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:07:03 -
[2737] - Quote
Harry Saq wrote:1. Inty Entosis Really really counterable if you use your space actively, removing it makes it far too easy to have buffer zones and camped pipes with empty systems tucked away at the back.
Harry Saq wrote:2. Prime Time Yep needs work. Large groups either need an incentive to give themselves a larger timezone (benefits to isk generation and/or individual safety during primetime) or have it forced upon them as a pure numbers game.
Harry Saq wrote:3. We have now gotten two sticks, where's the carrot (otherwise known as incentive to even live in null) Agree as well, could perhaps tie into number 2, benefits to harvesting resources/bounties from ratting etc whilst in your own sov and primetime is active would encourage larger alliances to extend it so that all their members can earn more (whilst defending their space concurrently) |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
347
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:13:16 -
[2738] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:DaReaper wrote:Harry Saq wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: I'm not just singling out mike here. The minutes on sov discussions that were redacted in the minutes must now be released, so the community can weigh 'what value csm', or 'what value csm member X'
I do believe this is relevant, and hope the minutes are put out sooner rather than later. Knowing the back and forth and where CSM members stood, is important with only 5 days left in the election. CCP, please release the minutes before the election is over. there are no minutes for this. you will not see the private communication between ccp and csm. Otherwise it defeats the whole point of the csm There should NEVER be private communication between CSM and CCP when it concerns game development. CSM are there simply to represent us the players - Everything said should be made available to US the players. If not, the csm elections is a waste as they can say and do as they please, so the only ones who would have any input with csm would be the blok leaders who get them elected. Be fair now, most of the work is done outside of the formal meetings, chats with the devs, visits to the pub at lunchtime, while catching a quick coffe or cigarette. No one can really expect all that to be parted out to the player base. And that is the least of it, hundreds of skype calls, and all the rest. We trust the CSM to represent us, If they are working hard, we need to believe that they are doing that job, and trust their actions and motives. We certainly have the right to know if they are lazy, ineffectual, or unworthy, for the next elections. But for better or worse, we voted for them, and as unpaid representatives, if they are fair reasonable and hard working ANYTHING else we get is pure bonus. All businesses do deals over lunch or beers, they then go back and formally write up those agreements for those interested parties to view. When an individual is representing thousands of others, A deal made over beers that can't be ratified, discussed and changed by any involved party should be thrown out as not valid. I don't want some half pissed CSM making decisions on my behalf and I'm pretty sure CCP don't want drunk Devs making decisions on theirs.
As for the "unpaid representatives" , they all volunteered for the job whether they get any reward for it is not relevant.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:14:54 -
[2739] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:I'd totally be game for moon resources to be harvestable in 0.0 anoms (to be scanned down like gas sites) and removing moon goo as POS thing - (introducing an alliance-tax would be a good thing in general, like alliance bm's). On the other hand this also means that r64s are no conflict/content creator anymore (I'd love it, no more pos grinds).
The ones who complain loudest about moon goo and their money income don't seem to uptodate or not remotely familiar with the actual business of dealing with moon goo and alliance finances. Every decent 0.0 alliance is doing SRP, staging towers, sov upkeep costs, upgrades, sbu/tcu/ihub upgrades whatever, stuff that costs money, loads of it. Moons help cover this plus some extra for alliance logistics and whatever. Given the amount of work done by those people and the FCs, my personal opinion is - let them have the ISKs. It's not like it's incredibly hard as line member to make a living in 0.0.
But to get back to topic - all these things mentioned are part of the problem, if these new changes happen this way then people won't put down billions over billions of isks to live down there, to stock markets, to fly several doctrines. You can tell from the many responses of 0.0 guys in here that people want to see a change, a more fun way to fight over sov space without huge blobs and constant grinds. I'm still hoping that CCP can think of a better way than this current proposal to change 0.0 in a meaningful way that encourages smaller and newer entities to venture to 0.0 - but also makes it interesting for older players with big toys to participate in this and resub, not crush these bittervets and their soonTM supercraps.
Tweak the numbers of the Entosis links, maybe require multiple hostile links, deploy low-HP structures that can be taken care of by small capable groups but not lonely players trying to annoy. Basically just read what players have thought about for years and find a way incorporate this in a new model. Don't just make 0.0 a huge FW zone, FW has its place and role - in lowsec, leave it there. Honest question... when was the last time an R64 moon was a conflict driver? You have the OTECH and other agreements by the big 3. AFAIK there have not been any major battles over moon goo in YEARS Hell not that along ago i was syphoning from a goon r64 that had no guns on it.
In border regions, check Stain, Aridia, Venal, etc. etc. - not saying they're getting wars started, but fleets clash over these moons, that's a fact - just check tmc or en24. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:19:08 -
[2740] - Quote
Glad to hear that CCP are tackling the prime time mechanic, as that is the one which initially stuck out as being a little out of place compared to the rest of the good changes.
Why not look at a system of maintenance cycles. After a set number of days the structure could open up their defences for repair and resupply over a much wider time period than the currently proposed 4 hours. So for instance every 10 days the structure would be vulnerable for a 24 hours time period, after which it would then be safe again for the next 10 days. After all I can imagine having to play this mini game for 4 hours every day could become tedious, and making the structure vulnerable for a whole day will give attackers more tactical possibilities in their timing of an attack, rather than just a small 4 hour window.
Also alliance member could speed up this window perhaps by using logistic ships and by transporting fuel/supplies in such a way as strontium is loaded into a POS. This would be an option for smaller alliances to close the vulnerability window although would be difficult for a large alliance to manage a logistic effort across their entire expanse. This would not be required, but would just speed up the process by a factor of 2 or 3 for example.
So in essence I would suggest a system of larger vulnerability windows, although more time in between them, and perhaps add some active way in which defenders could defend their space rather than simply sitting around waiting for an attack.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6558
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:19:31 -
[2741] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:DaReaper wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:I'd totally be game for moon resources to be harvestable in 0.0 anoms (to be scanned down like gas sites) and removing moon goo as POS thing - (introducing an alliance-tax would be a good thing in general, like alliance bm's). On the other hand this also means that r64s are no conflict/content creator anymore (I'd love it, no more pos grinds).
The ones who complain loudest about moon goo and their money income don't seem to uptodate or not remotely familiar with the actual business of dealing with moon goo and alliance finances. Every decent 0.0 alliance is doing SRP, staging towers, sov upkeep costs, upgrades, sbu/tcu/ihub upgrades whatever, stuff that costs money, loads of it. Moons help cover this plus some extra for alliance logistics and whatever. Given the amount of work done by those people and the FCs, my personal opinion is - let them have the ISKs. It's not like it's incredibly hard as line member to make a living in 0.0.
But to get back to topic - all these things mentioned are part of the problem, if these new changes happen this way then people won't put down billions over billions of isks to live down there, to stock markets, to fly several doctrines. You can tell from the many responses of 0.0 guys in here that people want to see a change, a more fun way to fight over sov space without huge blobs and constant grinds. I'm still hoping that CCP can think of a better way than this current proposal to change 0.0 in a meaningful way that encourages smaller and newer entities to venture to 0.0 - but also makes it interesting for older players with big toys to participate in this and resub, not crush these bittervets and their soonTM supercraps.
Tweak the numbers of the Entosis links, maybe require multiple hostile links, deploy low-HP structures that can be taken care of by small capable groups but not lonely players trying to annoy. Basically just read what players have thought about for years and find a way incorporate this in a new model. Don't just make 0.0 a huge FW zone, FW has its place and role - in lowsec, leave it there. Honest question... when was the last time an R64 moon was a conflict driver? You have the OTECH and other agreements by the big 3. AFAIK there have not been any major battles over moon goo in YEARS Hell not that along ago i was syphoning from a goon r64 that had no guns on it. In border regions, check Stain, Aridia, Venal, etc. etc. - not saying they're getting wars started, but fleets clash over these moons, that's a fact - just check tmc or en24. This reminds me of when someone noted that fleets clash at gates (so more gate travel -> more fights)
Or that people fight on ESSes, or even... the sun
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6558
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:20:37 -
[2742] - Quote
Harry Saq wrote:Big three issues so far...
1. Inty Entosis 2. Prime Time 3. We have now gotten two sticks, where's the carrot (otherwise known as incentive to even live in null)
Did I leave anything out? That seems to be the primary feedback so far. There'll be no blue donut when everyone just lives as concord's renters in highsec
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
631
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:24:33 -
[2743] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Harry Saq wrote:Big three issues so far...
1. Inty Entosis 2. Prime Time 3. We have now gotten two sticks, where's the carrot (otherwise known as incentive to even live in null)
Did I leave anything out? That seems to be the primary feedback so far. There'll be no blue donut when everyone just lives as concord's renters in highsec
Oh please...
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
214
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:24:43 -
[2744] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Or that people fight on ESSes, or even... the sun 1v1 at the sun m8 |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
347
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:25:26 -
[2745] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
The ONLY thing ceptors should have to do with the new sov mechanics - scouting and tackle, that is their role that is what they should do. No sov module (offensive or defensive) should be able to be fitted to anything smaller than a battlecruiser, it should have a fuel requirement, PG and CPU requirements as well.
Why shouldn't small ships play a role? Why not counter them with your small ships (or bigger ships?) Small ships can play a role, the one they are designed for. Ceptors role is tackle and scouting, I have no problem with that but if you can fit one of these Entosis modules to a ceptor you are actually removing active game play. They are immune to everything but "pilot stupid", so OP when it comes to being able to use a sov changing module.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
269
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:28:20 -
[2746] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Small ships can play a role, the one they are designed for. Ceptors role is tackle and scouting, I have no problem with that but if you can fit one of these Entosis modules to a ceptor you are actually removing active game play. They are immune to everything but "pilot stupid", so OP when it comes to being able to use a sov changing module. 2s align intys are pretty much invulnerable.
Activating an entosis link makes you a 2 minute align inty though - plenty of chance for a suitable ship to get a nice wrecking hit on you. |
Perkin Warbeck
Black Watch Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
191
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:30:20 -
[2747] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Perkin Warbeck wrote:Okay posting in the whine thread when I promised myself I wouldn't.
My two main issues are:
1. Capturing and defending sovereignty looks and feels similar to the FW model. It's wrong on so many levels. After experiencing the rate at which systems can be flipped and spending the best part of a year chasing stabbed frigates out of FW plexes in Sahtogas, I can testify that it is the most God awful, soul crushing gameplay you can imagine. There is a reason FW is best experienced when you don't actually live in the war zone and a reason why so many established corps have left.
2. The four hour window. I get the reasons for it but it kind of leaves the Aussies up the billabong without a didgeridoo. 1. The frigates can't just warp away in the sov situation, they have to finish their cycle first. Also, there's no cap on the size of the ships brought, so I'm not forced into frigates in many situations. 2. I can't argue with this because analogy is too amusing.
My issue isn't actually with whether a frigate, cruiser, small gang or whatever captures a system it's actually that CCP are trying to introduce a concept of 'perma war'. That your sov can be quickly attacked during a certain period every single day. Now perma war is great for the aggressor but it's terrible for the defender. After a while it becomes a grind and burn out and boredom set in. In theory it sounds fun but in reality it's awful. The defender actually needs some stability to develop and maintain growth in an area.
To me it appears that CCP has only developed one side of the equation. On the one hand it will be easier to take sovereignty. But what then? How does a small alliance/corp keep it unless they log on every single day and play capture the flag every single damn day. |
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
631
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:31:18 -
[2748] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
The ONLY thing ceptors should have to do with the new sov mechanics - scouting and tackle, that is their role that is what they should do. No sov module (offensive or defensive) should be able to be fitted to anything smaller than a battlecruiser, it should have a fuel requirement, PG and CPU requirements as well.
Why shouldn't small ships play a role? Why not counter them with your small ships (or bigger ships?) Small ships can play a role, the one they are designed for. Ceptors role is tackle and scouting, I have no problem with that but if you can fit one of these Entosis modules to a ceptor you are actually removing active game play. They are immune to everything but "pilot stupid", so OP when it comes to being able to use a sov changing module.
How are they immune if you can catch them?
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1833
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:32:09 -
[2749] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:DaReaper wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:I'd totally be game for moon resources to be harvestable in 0.0 anoms (to be scanned down like gas sites) and removing moon goo as POS thing - (introducing an alliance-tax would be a good thing in general, like alliance bm's). On the other hand this also means that r64s are no conflict/content creator anymore (I'd love it, no more pos grinds).
The ones who complain loudest about moon goo and their money income don't seem to uptodate or not remotely familiar with the actual business of dealing with moon goo and alliance finances. Every decent 0.0 alliance is doing SRP, staging towers, sov upkeep costs, upgrades, sbu/tcu/ihub upgrades whatever, stuff that costs money, loads of it. Moons help cover this plus some extra for alliance logistics and whatever. Given the amount of work done by those people and the FCs, my personal opinion is - let them have the ISKs. It's not like it's incredibly hard as line member to make a living in 0.0.
But to get back to topic - all these things mentioned are part of the problem, if these new changes happen this way then people won't put down billions over billions of isks to live down there, to stock markets, to fly several doctrines. You can tell from the many responses of 0.0 guys in here that people want to see a change, a more fun way to fight over sov space without huge blobs and constant grinds. I'm still hoping that CCP can think of a better way than this current proposal to change 0.0 in a meaningful way that encourages smaller and newer entities to venture to 0.0 - but also makes it interesting for older players with big toys to participate in this and resub, not crush these bittervets and their soonTM supercraps.
Tweak the numbers of the Entosis links, maybe require multiple hostile links, deploy low-HP structures that can be taken care of by small capable groups but not lonely players trying to annoy. Basically just read what players have thought about for years and find a way incorporate this in a new model. Don't just make 0.0 a huge FW zone, FW has its place and role - in lowsec, leave it there. Honest question... when was the last time an R64 moon was a conflict driver? You have the OTECH and other agreements by the big 3. AFAIK there have not been any major battles over moon goo in YEARS Hell not that along ago i was syphoning from a goon r64 that had no guns on it. In border regions, check Stain, Aridia, Venal, etc. etc. - not saying they're getting wars started, but fleets clash over these moons, that's a fact - just check tmc or en24.
ok true, but not as much as it used to be in the bob v ascn days
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1594
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:32:40 -
[2750] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
The ONLY thing ceptors should have to do with the new sov mechanics - scouting and tackle, that is their role that is what they should do. No sov module (offensive or defensive) should be able to be fitted to anything smaller than a battlecruiser, it should have a fuel requirement, PG and CPU requirements as well.
Why shouldn't small ships play a role? Why not counter them with your small ships (or bigger ships?) Small ships can play a role, the one they are designed for. Ceptors role is tackle and scouting, I have no problem with that but if you can fit one of these Entosis modules to a ceptor you are actually removing active game play. They are immune to everything but "pilot stupid", so OP when it comes to being able to use a sov changing module. I do see your point in a way, but if ships are prevented from starting the first stage in this process, by being blocked by remote gatecamps, then effectively nothing has changed, you defend with strong borders and it is easy to keep large areas of uninhabited or undefended space within them.
All an interceptor with Entosis link is doing is flagging the system as vunerable, and when the period of reinforcement occurs, then combat ships, of value, and strength, can engage to conquer the constellation. If the area is totally unoccupied and undefended, then why should it not be captured by any ship, even a drunk sailor in a rowing dingy can stake claim for his nation on an unclaimed island in history.. And did. Strong warrior vikings conquered Iceland, but being as no one was there, a toddler could have done it.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:33:26 -
[2751] - Quote
What's about all this 50 inties fleet fitted with Entosis Links thing.
Can't you guys read ?
Quote:Entosis Links have a significant cycle time (5 minutes for the Tech One variant, 2 minutes for Tech Two) and do not start affecting the battle for control of the target structure until the end of their first cycle.
Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes.
So,
- An inty can't fit a 250km Entosis cause of its targeting range. - An inty can still being annoying to catch orbiting @ 40k around that structure with active Entosis.
But
- Inty won't be able to warp during cycle. - Inty can't be reped up by logis.
So wtf ? One hugins with a solo support ship like, let's say Svipul, can blap it in 2 sec. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
347
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:33:29 -
[2752] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Small ships can play a role, the one they are designed for. Ceptors role is tackle and scouting, I have no problem with that but if you can fit one of these Entosis modules to a ceptor you are actually removing active game play. They are immune to everything but "pilot stupid", so OP when it comes to being able to use a sov changing module. 2s align intys are pretty much invulnerable. Activating an entosis link makes you a 2 minute align inty though - plenty of chance for a suitable ship to get a nice wrecking hit on you. How? Does the Entosis module act like siege and you are unable to move for 2 mins? Or is the ceptor just going to warp off when he spots something on dscan?
If they make it so once you activate Entosis you are locked in position and can't move for 2 mins, by all means bring as many ceptors as you like.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
712
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:34:58 -
[2753] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:One big enough to have active members in all (read: spread out over most) of the systems they own. That can be 100 or 100,000, it depends how many systems they are trying to hold. A hundred (active) guys could likely hold a constellation, 100,000 could likely keep multiple regions safe. so you should need 100 guys to be able to hold 5 systems eh
I pulled those nbers out of my ass for an example. That wasnt a guide to how many people it should take to hold a constellation
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1833
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:35:39 -
[2754] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Small ships can play a role, the one they are designed for. Ceptors role is tackle and scouting, I have no problem with that but if you can fit one of these Entosis modules to a ceptor you are actually removing active game play. They are immune to everything but "pilot stupid", so OP when it comes to being able to use a sov changing module. 2s align intys are pretty much invulnerable. Activating an entosis link makes you a 2 minute align inty though - plenty of chance for a suitable ship to get a nice wrecking hit on you. How? Does the Entosis module act like siege and you are unable to move for 2 mins? Or is the ceptor just going to warp off when he spots something on dscan? If they make it so once you activate Entosis you are locked in position and can't move for 2 mins, by all means bring as many ceptors as you like.
you can not warp once the mod is activated. you can orbit but can;t get away for 2 min
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
269
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:35:47 -
[2755] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:How? Does the Entosis module act like siege and you are unable to move for 2 mins? Or is the ceptor just going to warp off when he spots something on dscan?
If they make it so once you activate Entosis you are locked in position and can't move for 2 mins, by all means bring as many ceptors as you like. You can't warp whilst the link is cycling - You're stuck on grid until you can burn off far enough to reach the next one or the module cycle ends.
Defensive grid-fu around your own points (edit: and prepared warp ins for sniper ships to land at) will help in this respect. |
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:38:18 -
[2756] - Quote
Quote:Entosis Links have a significant cycle time (5 minutes for the Tech One variant, 2 minutes for Tech Two) and do not start affecting the battle for control of the target structure until the end of their first cycle.
Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes.
Would be interesting to know though if the cycle is still concidered cycling even though your out of range.
- Let's say, i activate a 5minutes long cycle Entosis. - @ 2mn cycle I see ennemies burning to me. - I Pull range, get out of target range. - @ 3mn I lose target.
Can I still warp off ? Would've been good to know. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
269
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:39:43 -
[2757] - Quote
Cleanse Serce wrote:Would be interesting to know though if the cycle is still concidered cycling even though your our of range.
- Let's say, i activate a 5minutes long cycle Entosis. - I see ennemies burning to me. - I Pull range, get out of target range. - I lose target.
Can I still warp off ? Would've been good to know. It's been raised before and no answer yet but it makes a mockery of the system if you can cap yourself out, have friendly ECM or just pull range to cancel out the effects |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1594
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:41:06 -
[2758] - Quote
Cleanse Serce wrote:Would be interesting to know though if the cycle is still concidered cycling even though your our of range.
- Let's say, i activate a 5minutes long cycle Entosis. - @ 2mn cycle I see ennemies burning to me. - I Pull range, get out of target range. - @ 3mn I lose target.
Can I still warp off ? Would've been good to know.
If it is like most modules, for example A HIC bubble , then until the cycle ends, you are not going to be able to warp anywhere, even if there is no one in your bubble. But naturally it would be good to have confirmation that that is the case.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:43:43 -
[2759] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Cleanse Serce wrote:Would be interesting to know though if the cycle is still concidered cycling even though your our of range.
- Let's say, i activate a 5minutes long cycle Entosis. - @ 2mn cycle I see ennemies burning to me. - I Pull range, get out of target range. - @ 3mn I lose target.
Can I still warp off ? Would've been good to know. If it is like most modules, for example A HIC bubble , then until the cycle ends, you are not going to be able to warp anywhere, even if there is no one in your bubble. But naturally it would be good to have confirmation that that is the case.
Not quite like HIC, cause even if there're no pilots in your bublle, your bubble is still active till its end of cycle. (kind of an AoE)
There it's an activable module ON one target.
Could be a new timer that pops out when you activate the module. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
347
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:44:14 -
[2760] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Small ships can play a role, the one they are designed for. Ceptors role is tackle and scouting, I have no problem with that but if you can fit one of these Entosis modules to a ceptor you are actually removing active game play. They are immune to everything but "pilot stupid", so OP when it comes to being able to use a sov changing module. 2s align intys are pretty much invulnerable. Activating an entosis link makes you a 2 minute align inty though - plenty of chance for a suitable ship to get a nice wrecking hit on you. How? Does the Entosis module act like siege and you are unable to move for 2 mins? Or is the ceptor just going to warp off when he spots something on dscan? If they make it so once you activate Entosis you are locked in position and can't move for 2 mins, by all means bring as many ceptors as you like. you can not warp once the mod is activated. you can orbit but can;t get away for 2 min Ok my bad, I somehow missed that. It gives ceptors a drawback to using an Entosis so therefore I remove my objection.
I would still personally like to see Entosis tied to battle cruisers, a ceptor can freely roam until he finds the ideal spot for 2 mins of uninterrupted "kill sov" whereas a battle cruiser is going to need some sort of a support fleet to even get the the location. Seems it would create more content than a few ceptors roaming around taking sov.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:46:22 -
[2761] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Honest question... when was the last time an R64 moon was a conflict driver? You have the OTECH and other agreements by the big 3. AFAIK there have not been any major battles over moon goo in YEARS
Hell not that along ago i was syphoning from a goon r64 that had no guns on it.
We fight over individual R64s all the time. As for 'when was the last time moons were the cause for a major war?'... well, we did invade Fountain in 2013 over moons.
Last year, everything shifted over to rental empires, but moon goo is still a good-sized chunk of income.
|
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:47:08 -
[2762] - Quote
Ceptors is just something pointed by people scared of easy sov warfare that did not read carefully.
I'm sure, people won't come with ceptors to activate Entosis. Well atleast, not in DEFENDED systems. |
Buzz Dura
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:48:27 -
[2763] - Quote
Quote: breakthroughs in the field of mind-machine interfacing
Quote:The Entosis Link module represents the central interaction mechanic
Quote:The Entosis Link is used for all kinds of manipulation of these structures. In general, activating an Entosis Link on a structure you own will activate and protect it, while activating an Entosis Link on a structure you do not own will disable, reinforce or capture it.
Sounds to me like the one in power is the one in command.
This module should be restricted to command capable class ship like BC/command/T3/carrier/orca/rorqual with special bonus from hull to specific sov structure : rorqual could be more efficient in hacking station services like cloning etc..
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1594
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:48:41 -
[2764] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:DaReaper wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Small ships can play a role, the one they are designed for. Ceptors role is tackle and scouting, I have no problem with that but if you can fit one of these Entosis modules to a ceptor you are actually removing active game play. They are immune to everything but "pilot stupid", so OP when it comes to being able to use a sov changing module. 2s align intys are pretty much invulnerable. Activating an entosis link makes you a 2 minute align inty though - plenty of chance for a suitable ship to get a nice wrecking hit on you. How? Does the Entosis module act like siege and you are unable to move for 2 mins? Or is the ceptor just going to warp off when he spots something on dscan? If they make it so once you activate Entosis you are locked in position and can't move for 2 mins, by all means bring as many ceptors as you like. you can not warp once the mod is activated. you can orbit but can;t get away for 2 min Ok my bad, I somehow missed that. It gives ceptors a drawback to using an Entosis so therefore I remove my objection. I would still personally like to see Entosis tied to battle cruisers, a ceptor can freely roam until he finds the ideal spot for 2 mins of uninterrupted "kill sov" whereas a battle cruiser is going to need some sort of a support fleet to even get the the location. Seems it would create more content than a few ceptors roaming around taking sov.
Remember though, an interceptor, can only effectively start the first stage of the process, when the reinforcement timer states capture can commence, then they would be exterminated by a defending fleet if they tried. However, If no one turns up to defend? Everyone knows the date and time of the battle. No fleet is there? No defence? Then there is no one living there, or they are unwilling to fight for their home. Why should they expect to hold on to sovereignty? Why should they complain about how easily they were defeated.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
270
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:50:11 -
[2765] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Ok my bad, I somehow missed that. It gives ceptors a drawback to using an Entosis so therefore I remove my objection.
I would still personally like to see Entosis tied to battle cruisers, a ceptor can freely roam until he finds the ideal spot for 2 mins of uninterrupted "kill sov" whereas a battle cruiser is going to need some sort of a support fleet to even get the the location. Seems it would create more content than a few ceptors roaming around taking sov. Ceptors are only gonna be able to take undefended sov. If it's defended then you can bring all your other ships to the party even caps and supercaps if the defence is strong enough to warrant it - although the multiple capture points and shifting positions of engagement for the fight as it comes out of RF will mean you'll want to split up your blob of caps into smaller parts. |
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
441
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:50:21 -
[2766] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:Kinis Deren wrote:Corey Lean wrote:My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc. Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal? This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine. As long as you think a group of 1k people against 40k can do anything you'll be obliterated as the talis. You're not more than a terrorist group against the big motherf USA of New Eden. Keep on deliring while you stick to npc null, or try to get sov and get obliterated on your way.
Them's fighting words boi .... except you are a liddle NPC corp nobody or did you get kicked after we killed your ratting carrier prehaps?
Well, Mr NPC corp gooniewannabee, at least you are talking about actually wanting to fight, rather than docking up like a little kitty at the first sight of me in local, so you could say the proposed changes are already working, OP SUCCESS!
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1594
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:55:43 -
[2767] - Quote
Cleanse Serce wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Cleanse Serce wrote:Would be interesting to know though if the cycle is still concidered cycling even though your our of range.
- Let's say, i activate a 5minutes long cycle Entosis. - @ 2mn cycle I see ennemies burning to me. - I Pull range, get out of target range. - @ 3mn I lose target.
Can I still warp off ? Would've been good to know. If it is like most modules, for example A HIC bubble , then until the cycle ends, you are not going to be able to warp anywhere, even if there is no one in your bubble. But naturally it would be good to have confirmation that that is the case. Not quite like HIC, cause even if there're no pilots in your bublle, your bubble is still active till its end of cycle. (kind of an AoE) There it's an activable module ON one target. Could be a new timer that pops out when you activate the module. Good point, It is likely for CCP to use existing mechanics for timers, but of course one should not assume. Confirmation would be good at some point. Certainly the warp restriction would only be logical if it lasted the full cycle, otherwise one could just shut down lock and warp away at any time, and CCP is unlikely to miss that exploit.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
712
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:03:04 -
[2768] - Quote
Harry Saq wrote:Big three issues so far...
1. Inty Entosis 2. Prime Time 3. We have now gotten two sticks, where's the carrot (otherwise known as incentive to even live in null)
Did I leave anything out? That seems to be the primary feedback so far.
1. Way overblown 2. Viable complaint. This is an area reasonable arguements can be made in. Prime time is necessary to make the links work without endless sov trolling. The aussies can make their own alliances, all of which will be equally crippled by the quality of their internet and distance from the servers. 3. Potentially viable. People pay for the right to live in null, so it isnt that bad. Yet its still easier to make money running incursions (if you can get in a fleet).
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1595
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:03:33 -
[2769] - Quote
Cleanse Serce wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Good point, It is likely for CCP to use existing mechanics for timers, but of course one should not assume. Confirmation would be good at some point. Certainly the warp restriction would only be logical if it lasted the full cycle, otherwise one could just shut down lock and warp away at any time, and CCP is unlikely to miss that exploit.
The timer thing could be a good "indirect" way to 'force' people using tankier ship to activate Entosis on structures, specially in "sensitiv" systems (ones that are supposed to be heavily defended)
Yes, quite true, using interceptors to attempt to capture a heavily defended system with active players, would not end well for the interceptor pilot. For such conquest attempts, a full support fleet will be required.
Occupied systems will be something requiring commitment. Unoccupied and unwanted systems will be fairly simple to capture.
But of course in the main phase of the capture event, one best be prepared, as the initial lack of apparent defence may be purely bait to get you to commit to the main event, and come unprepared for the welcome you receive.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:06:51 -
[2770] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:you must not mine... or use a cyno
exsample:
When mining, if you have two beans on a single rock, and they both cycle, one starts its next cycle, the other finished and poped the rock, the frst beam will complete its cycle regaurdless of the target being there, untill such time as it finished and goes 'oh roid is gone' or you cancle it. even if you pull range, the cycle STILL goes to completetion, it just gives you no ore cause your out of range.
In the instance of a cyno, it doenslt matter when you stop they cycle, it will still finish, regaurdless of whats going on.
My guess is, you will be locked into your cycle like a seige, triage, cyno, bastion, etc.
you will have to stay in range for the cycle to finish. So you start cycle, 2m in reds show up, at 3m you burn out of range, at 5 the cycle ends but it would error out as you are now out of range. same with your lock breaking.
Think of it like a hack, if you don;t finish the hack you will have to start all over.
You must not PvP.
Cause when my target get's out of range, my web INSTANTLY deactivate its cycle. :)
But as i'm righting this i realise, that's a specific High module behaviour to end its cycle before it deactivates. Since Entosis Link is a High slot module....
Interesting |
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1833
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:10:48 -
[2771] - Quote
Cleanse Serce wrote:DaReaper wrote:you must not mine... or use a cyno
exsample:
When mining, if you have two beans on a single rock, and they both cycle, one starts its next cycle, the other finished and poped the rock, the frst beam will complete its cycle regaurdless of the target being there, untill such time as it finished and goes 'oh roid is gone' or you cancle it. even if you pull range, the cycle STILL goes to completetion, it just gives you no ore cause your out of range.
In the instance of a cyno, it doenslt matter when you stop they cycle, it will still finish, regaurdless of whats going on.
My guess is, you will be locked into your cycle like a seige, triage, cyno, bastion, etc.
you will have to stay in range for the cycle to finish. So you start cycle, 2m in reds show up, at 3m you burn out of range, at 5 the cycle ends but it would error out as you are now out of range. same with your lock breaking.
Think of it like a hack, if you don;t finish the hack you will have to start all over. You must not PvP. Cause when my target get's out of range, my web INSTANTLY deactivate its cycle. :) But as i'm righting this i realise, that's a specific High module behaviour to end its cycle before it deactivates. Since Entosis Link is a High slot module.... Interesting
have pvp'd i just suck at it ;) but yea. I'm leanign that it will act more like a cyno, triage, seige, or even a a weapon that still fires even if the last one killed the target mid cycle.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
712
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:11:40 -
[2772] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Cleanse Serce wrote:Would be interesting to know though if the cycle is still concidered cycling even though your our of range.
- Let's say, i activate a 5minutes long cycle Entosis. - I see ennemies burning to me. - I Pull range, get out of target range. - I lose target.
Can I still warp off ? Would've been good to know. It's been raised before and no answer yet but it makes a mockery of the system if you can cap yourself out, have friendly ECM or just pull range to cancel out the effects
The module has to finish cycling before it can be deactivated. Just like a cyno, you light it, all your fuel is gone, yet you're still stuck fornthe full 10 minutes.
There's no reason module mechanics would change now.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1595
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:14:01 -
[2773] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Cleanse Serce wrote:Would be interesting to know though if the cycle is still concidered cycling even though your our of range.
- Let's say, i activate a 5minutes long cycle Entosis. - I see ennemies burning to me. - I Pull range, get out of target range. - I lose target.
Can I still warp off ? Would've been good to know. It's been raised before and no answer yet but it makes a mockery of the system if you can cap yourself out, have friendly ECM or just pull range to cancel out the effects The module has to finish cycling before it can be deactivated. Just like a cyno, you light it, all your fuel is gone, yet you're still stuck fornthe full 10 minutes. There's no reason module mechanics would change now.
It literally would have no reason to exist as a restriction, if it behaved any other way. If it was released by accident, it would be corrected by the first available patch.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Iudicium Vastus
Incognito Holdings and Savings
319
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:17:35 -
[2774] - Quote
A carrot for the stick? What's the carrot currently?
Some make it sound like null is just a vast land of lower-than-hisec income with logistical nightmares on top. If so, then why are people out there now? And in such vast numbers in the coalitions?
Shouldn't the carrot just simply be the very same carrot that exists currently? There's gotta be one right, to have the alliance/coalition numbers null enjoys over other player entities?
[u]Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW?[/u] No, just..
-Fit more points
-Fit faction points
-Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too)
|
Vyl Vit
1071
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:18:22 -
[2775] - Quote
Isn't it so like this current playerbase to point the finger at the mod and completely overlook the greater dynamics this new SOV change will bring? Why is this? The new mod itself is little more than a pointing finger. The discussion is all about sawing off the pointing finger, or keeping the pointing finger from being sawed off, or why can just anybody point the finger? None of it is a lively discussion about how this change will affect two things that have plagued the majority of New Eden for years - blue blobs and blue donuts. Under Band of Brothers, a huge section of the map was in stasis forcing players onto a small section of null sec space. Under the Blue Donut, all that happens in null sec is people rent from other people.
The majority of items in the game just aren't being used, and in both instances of "natural" game play, the "natural" result seems to be (once again) freezing up the majority of New Eden. This certainly isn't gameplay. DIddling around with one or two elements without pulling the entirety of EVE's features into play isn't gameplay either. It's diddling around. At last with this new approach there's a significant potential to pull EVE into the game of EVE. People who are focusing on the mod, and trying to find ways to circumvent things like downtime visa vis prime time will miss the boat entirely. People, and CEOs/Alliance leaderships that focus on all the aspects of the game - the development of systems, the sovereignty panel, the many and varied skills of the group now disparagingly called "carebears" WILL WIN.
So, yes. Do continue your bogged down in minutia discussion of the module, and how someone might circumvent the intended with the clever. However, understand in so doing you're demonstrating how little you've bothered to learn about the wider game of EVE. It's like obsessing on the queen's hair do and not developing a strong pawn game. And, as anyone who knows chess will tell you, the game is won with the pawn game, not the queen.
I look forward to seeing the hindparts of The Blue Donut as it disappears over the horizon looking for another game to smother. I'm even looking forward to seeing the departure of people whose imaginations and true strategic abilities only amount to that. I'm going to enjoy ganking becoming an annoyance (as it rightly is) and emergent gameplay suddenly becoming playing EVE again!
I appreciate everyone's effort to support our game through this forum. I only suggest those who are fixated on a module try expanding your understanding of this game we play by taking a look at the map, and the other panels that seem to never get used. They are going to be the central focus of the game now - as it should be.
"The battle is won before it is fought." -Sun Tzu's way of saying "know what you're doing."-
Anyone with any sense has already left town.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15395
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:22:44 -
[2776] - Quote
Iudicium Vastus wrote:A carrot for the stick? What's the carrot currently?
Some make it sound like null is just a vast land of lower-than-hisec income with logistical nightmares on top. If so, then why are people out there now? And in such vast numbers in the coalitions?
Shouldn't the carrot just simply be the very same carrot that exists currently? There's gotta be one right, to have the alliance/coalition numbers null enjoys over other player entities?
People might be out in null but that doesn't mean they earn their isk out there. Income for your average line member is indeed poor in null when compared to highsec. About the only reward I get out in null for defending our space is fights and docking rights.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Cancel Align NOW
Greater Order Of Destruction The Good Christian Society
466
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:23:41 -
[2777] - Quote
I generally like the upcoming changes I have two areas of reservation:
1. The Prime Timer could seriously limit sov interaction. It would make sense for pilots to migrate to the alliance who is dominant in their OP time. It also makes sense for alliances to ensure their neighbours have polar opposite prime times.
2. Where is the incentive for a regular Joe in a small corp to join the sovereignty game: Outside of the major blocs risk vs reward is askew. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6558
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:27:56 -
[2778] - Quote
Vyl Vit wrote:Isn't it so like this current playerbase to point the finger at the mod and completely overlook the greater dynamics this new SOV change will bring? Why is this? The new mod itself is little more than a pointing finger. The discussion is all about sawing off the pointing finger, or keeping the pointing finger from being sawed off, or why can just anybody point the finger? None of it is a lively discussion about how this change will affect two things that have plagued the majority of New Eden for years - blue blobs and blue donuts. Under Band of Brothers, a huge section of the map was in stasis forcing players onto a small section of null sec space. Under the Blue Donut, all that happens in null sec is people rent from other people.
The majority of items in the game just aren't being used, and in both instances of "natural" game play, the "natural" result seems to be (once again) freezing up the majority of New Eden. This certainly isn't gameplay. DIddling around with one or two elements without pulling the entirety of EVE's features into play isn't gameplay either. It's diddling around. At last with this new approach there's a significant potential to pull EVE into the game of EVE. People who are focusing on the mod, and trying to find ways to circumvent things like downtime visa vis prime time will miss the boat entirely. People, and CEOs/Alliance leaderships that focus on all the aspects of the game - the development of systems, the sovereignty panel, the many and varied skills of the group now disparagingly called "carebears" WILL WIN.
So, yes. Do continue your bogged down in minutia discussion of the module, and how someone might circumvent the intended with the clever. However, understand in so doing you're demonstrating how little you've bothered to learn about the wider game of EVE. It's like obsessing on the queen's hair do and not developing a strong pawn game. And, as anyone who knows chess will tell you, the game is won with the pawn game, not the queen.
I look forward to seeing the hindparts of The Blue Donut as it disappears over the horizon looking for another game to smother. I'm even looking forward to seeing the departure of people whose imaginations and true strategic abilities only amount to that. I'm going to enjoy ganking becoming an annoyance (as it rightly is) and emergent gameplay suddenly becoming playing EVE again!
I appreciate everyone's effort to support our game through this forum. I only suggest those who are fixated on a module try expanding your understanding of this game we play by taking a look at the map, and the other panels that seem to never get used. They are going to be the central focus of the game now - as it should be.
"The battle is won before it is fought." -Sun Tzu's way of saying "know what you're doing."- Listen to this person
our 0.0 dream is over.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Pok Nibin
Filial Pariahs
579
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:29:02 -
[2779] - Quote
Vyl Vit wrote:Isn't it so like this current playerbase to point the finger at the mod and completely overlook the greater dynamics this new SOV change will bring? Why is this? The new mod itself is little more than a pointing finger. The discussion is all about sawing off the pointing finger, or keeping the pointing finger from being sawed off, or why can just anybody point the finger? None of it is a lively discussion about how this change will affect two things that have plagued the majority of New Eden for years - blue blobs and blue donuts. Under Band of Brothers, a huge section of the map was in stasis forcing players onto a small section of null sec space. Under the Blue Donut, all that happens in null sec is people rent from other people.
The majority of items in the game just aren't being used, and in both instances of "natural" game play, the "natural" result seems to be (once again) freezing up the majority of New Eden. This certainly isn't gameplay. DIddling around with one or two elements without pulling the entirety of EVE's features into play isn't gameplay either. It's diddling around. At last with this new approach there's a significant potential to pull EVE into the game of EVE. People who are focusing on the mod, and trying to find ways to circumvent things like downtime visa vis prime time will miss the boat entirely. People, and CEOs/Alliance leaderships that focus on all the aspects of the game - the development of systems, the sovereignty panel, the many and varied skills of the group now disparagingly called "carebears" WILL WIN.
So, yes. Do continue your bogged down in minutia discussion of the module, and how someone might circumvent the intended with the clever. However, understand in so doing you're demonstrating how little you've bothered to learn about the wider game of EVE. It's like obsessing on the queen's hair-do and not developing a strong pawn game. And, as anyone who knows chess will tell you, the game is won with the pawn game, not the queen.
I look forward to seeing the hindparts of The Blue Donut as it disappears over the horizon looking for another game to smother. I'm even looking forward to seeing the departure of people whose imaginations and true strategic abilities only amount to that. I'm going to enjoy ganking becoming an annoyance (as it rightly is) and emergent gameplay suddenly becoming playing EVE again!
I appreciate everyone's effort to support our game through this forum. I only suggest those who are fixated on a module try expanding your understanding of this game we play by taking a look at the map, and the other panels that seem to never get used. They are going to be the central focus of the game now - as it should be.
"The battle is won before it is fought." -Sun Tzu's way of saying "know what you're doing."- Hear hear.
Dont fight it; Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs; You know you want to.
|
Serene Repose
2341
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:31:26 -
[2780] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Vyl Vit wrote:Isn't it so like this current playerbase to point the finger at the mod and completely overlook the greater dynamics this new SOV change will bring? Why is this? The new mod itself is little more than a pointing finger. The discussion is all about sawing off the pointing finger, or keeping the pointing finger from being sawed off, or why can just anybody point the finger? None of it is a lively discussion about how this change will affect two things that have plagued the majority of New Eden for years - blue blobs and blue donuts. Under Band of Brothers, a huge section of the map was in stasis forcing players onto a small section of null sec space. Under the Blue Donut, all that happens in null sec is people rent from other people.
The majority of items in the game just aren't being used, and in both instances of "natural" game play, the "natural" result seems to be (once again) freezing up the majority of New Eden. This certainly isn't gameplay. DIddling around with one or two elements without pulling the entirety of EVE's features into play isn't gameplay either. It's diddling around. At last with this new approach there's a significant potential to pull EVE into the game of EVE. People who are focusing on the mod, and trying to find ways to circumvent things like downtime visa vis prime time will miss the boat entirely. People, and CEOs/Alliance leaderships that focus on all the aspects of the game - the development of systems, the sovereignty panel, the many and varied skills of the group now disparagingly called "carebears" WILL WIN.
So, yes. Do continue your bogged down in minutia discussion of the module, and how someone might circumvent the intended with the clever. However, understand in so doing you're demonstrating how little you've bothered to learn about the wider game of EVE. It's like obsessing on the queen's hair do and not developing a strong pawn game. And, as anyone who knows chess will tell you, the game is won with the pawn game, not the queen.
I look forward to seeing the hindparts of The Blue Donut as it disappears over the horizon looking for another game to smother. I'm even looking forward to seeing the departure of people whose imaginations and true strategic abilities only amount to that. I'm going to enjoy ganking becoming an annoyance (as it rightly is) and emergent gameplay suddenly becoming playing EVE again!
I appreciate everyone's effort to support our game through this forum. I only suggest those who are fixated on a module try expanding your understanding of this game we play by taking a look at the map, and the other panels that seem to never get used. They are going to be the central focus of the game now - as it should be.
"The battle is won before it is fought." -Sun Tzu's way of saying "know what you're doing."- Listen to this person our 0.0 dream is over. Ha ha! Yeah. YOURS is. Want some syrup with that waffle?
Treason never prospers. What is the reason?
Why, if it prospers, none dare call it "treason."
|
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1595
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:31:27 -
[2781] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Iudicium Vastus wrote:A carrot for the stick? What's the carrot currently?
Some make it sound like null is just a vast land of lower-than-hisec income with logistical nightmares on top. If so, then why are people out there now? And in such vast numbers in the coalitions?
Shouldn't the carrot just simply be the very same carrot that exists currently? There's gotta be one right, to have the alliance/coalition numbers null enjoys over other player entities? People might be out in null but that doesn't mean they earn their isk out there. Income for your average line member is indeed poor in null when compared to highsec. About the only reward I get out in null for defending our space is fights and docking rights.
If it is neccessary for people to have to travel to, or have alts in areas other than your home area, to earn enough to function then every area of space should support rectifying that. It is an entirely valid goal.
How one gets that iformation out in front of CCP and the wider community, is a harder challenge.
For a long time people believed low class wormholes were bathed in isk, and everyone was rich! Until the truth was shown, nothing happened.
But Our CSM gave detailed information as to the reality, and showed the whole community his data, that he spent weeks collating and sourcing. And everyone realised the magnitude of the situation.
And CCP were wonderful, in fast, simple imaginative, fixes, to resolve the issue. They will no doubt do a wider rebalance at a later. Date to fine tune it.
I hope your representatives can do something similar, and your needs will be met. Fairly, and equitably. A healthy nullsec, is of value to all, wherever we live. The same applies to all areas, all deserve a living source of income to support the food chain.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6558
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:33:06 -
[2782] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Iudicium Vastus wrote:A carrot for the stick? What's the carrot currently?
Some make it sound like null is just a vast land of lower-than-hisec income with logistical nightmares on top. If so, then why are people out there now? And in such vast numbers in the coalitions?
Shouldn't the carrot just simply be the very same carrot that exists currently? There's gotta be one right, to have the alliance/coalition numbers null enjoys over other player entities? People might be out in null but that doesn't mean they earn their isk out there. Income for your average line member is indeed poor in null when compared to highsec. About the only reward I get out in null for defending our space is fights and docking rights. It's because we've been brainwashed by our leaders.
Once you end our 0.0 nightmare we will be free and live in highsec, one nation under concord
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:36:39 -
[2783] - Quote
Vyl Vit wrote:Isn't it so like this current playerbase to point the finger at the mod and completely overlook the greater dynamics this new SOV change will bring? Why is this? The new mod itself is little more than a pointing finger. The discussion is all about sawing off the pointing finger, or keeping the pointing finger from being sawed off, or why can just anybody point the finger? None of it is a lively discussion about how this change will affect two things that have plagued the majority of New Eden for years - blue blobs and blue donuts. Under Band of Brothers, a huge section of the map was in stasis forcing players onto a small section of null sec space. Under the Blue Donut, all that happens in null sec is people rent from other people.
The majority of items in the game just aren't being used, and in both instances of "natural" game play, the "natural" result seems to be (once again) freezing up the majority of New Eden. This certainly isn't gameplay. DIddling around with one or two elements without pulling the entirety of EVE's features into play isn't gameplay either. It's diddling around. At last with this new approach there's a significant potential to pull EVE into the game of EVE. People who are focusing on the mod, and trying to find ways to circumvent things like downtime visa vis prime time will miss the boat entirely. People, and CEOs/Alliance leaderships that focus on all the aspects of the game - the development of systems, the sovereignty panel, the many and varied skills of the group now disparagingly called "carebears" WILL WIN.
So, yes. Do continue your bogged down in minutia discussion of the module, and how someone might circumvent the intended with the clever. However, understand in so doing you're demonstrating how little you've bothered to learn about the wider game of EVE. It's like obsessing on the queen's hair do and not developing a strong pawn game. And, as anyone who knows chess will tell you, the game is won with the pawn game, not the queen.
I look forward to seeing the hindparts of The Blue Donut as it disappears over the horizon looking for another game to smother. I'm even looking forward to seeing the departure of people whose imaginations and true strategic abilities only amount to that. I'm going to enjoy ganking becoming an annoyance (as it rightly is) and emergent gameplay suddenly becoming playing EVE again!
I appreciate everyone's effort to support our game through this forum. I only suggest those who are fixated on a module try expanding your understanding of this game we play by taking a look at the map, and the other panels that seem to never get used. They are going to be the central focus of the game now - as it should be.
"The battle is won before it is fought." -Sun Tzu's way of saying "know what you're doing."-
Question here is, will this change the meta? Is this something that will break the power of coalitions like the CFC? I doubt it. I really do. CFC for example is using marauding squadrons themselves to put certain regions under pressure to aid "friendlies" or the enemy of the enemy. PL, N3 and CFC do have the resources and the isks to get enough mercs going around and rf'ing regions, then put in a major force to secure an area.
I'm not sure there's even a change that could bring down a well organized medium business like the CFC, people who think that entities like Mordu's Angels (which I love btw., keep it up) can take down the CFC are dreaming. This new mechanic still promotes numbers, the first weeks might be a bit of a chaos until people figure out how to use it / defend it, as usual.
Is it so much of a change not to have CTA for a 1h structure grind or to hop 5x systems and secure nodes? The focus on the mod is due to the fact that the entire sov mechanic is based on that mod. The way it works and what's needed to fit it / the effects of that mod are crucial in the way people are going to use it. And guys like you who dumb down 140 pages of discussion to "trololol you only focus on the mod" are as ignorant as they claim the people to be in here. I think it's almost as clever as dumbing down sov to a highslot module (presumably able to be fitted on a frig). On the brightside, CCP can save some workload on the supercapital rebalance, nobody is going to use them anymore after this and the lack of fighter assign. Well, maybe for a thunderdome. |
Pok Nibin
Filial Pariahs
579
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:38:08 -
[2784] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Once you end our 0.0 nightmare we will be free and live in highsec, one nation under concord What you mean to say is, once you are forced to hold what you're sitting on, the paper tiger will be revealed and you'll be run out of 0.0.
Maybe it is all semantics.
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote: Question here is, will this change the meta? Is this something that will break the power of coalitions like the CFC? I doubt it. I really do. CFC for example is using marauding squadrons themselves to put certain regions under pressure to aid "friendlies" or the enemy of the enemy. PL, N3 and CFC do have the resources and the isks to get enough mercs going around and rf'ing regions, then put in a major force to secure an area.
I'm not sure there's even a change that could bring down a well organized medium business like the CFC, people who think that entities like Mordu's Angels (which I love btw., keep it up) can take down the CFC are dreaming. This new mechanic still promotes numbers, the first weeks might be a bit of a chaos until people figure out how to use it / defend it, as usual.
Is it so much of a change not to have CTA for a 1h structure grind or to hop 5x systems and secure nodes? The focus on the mod is due to the fact that the entire sov mechanic is based on that mod. The way it works and what's needed to fit it / the effects of that mod are crucial in the way people are going to use it. And guys like you who dumb down 140 pages of discussion to "trololol you only focus on the mod" are as ignorant as they claim the people to be in here. I think it's almost as clever as dumbing down sov to a highslot module (presumably able to be fitted on a frig). On the brightside, CCP can save some workload on the supercapital rebalance, nobody is going to use them anymore after this and the lack of fighter assign. Well, maybe for a thunderdome. I see what you're trying to say here, but it is fraught with misconception which makes it difficult to respond to, point by point. I'd have to say (if you share this view) you'll just have to wait and see when people who understand these dynamics vigorously employ them, what the result becomes. Then you'll get it.
Dont fight it; Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs; You know you want to.
|
Tamdra Beebort
Terrestrial Trading Consortium of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:40:38 -
[2785] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:
And you were talking about doing this across the whole of the south, that's 40 minutes for every structure in the south of the map...
That we can hit all at once. Under the current plans we could attack all of nullsec in a single weekend.
I don't want to be rude because I haven't been in null for a few years but if you are out hitting all of the south then who is watching your back yard? Invading the south for a few days would let any frig hole that opens in your area dump potentially hundreds of the same kind of E-link frigs to do the same thing to your SOV.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that we're moving to the extremes of the arguments to expose loop holes in mechanics but if you are busy harassing others in a different area doesn't that allow others to do the same thing to you? I agree that E-linked interceptors may be too easily used as a trolling ship but at the same time a larger ship fitted to deal with ceptors with a Entosis mod could be use to defend. At least a well tanked ship with its own Entosis link would stop the interceptor till a more robust fleet arrived or the aggressor simply gave up or was destroyed.
The goal of these new mechanics are to encourage fights, keep pilots active and quell stagnation. When pilots are out trolling systems causing people to undock and defend their assets then that, to me, means that the mechanic is working as intended. If the defender doesn't defend then they should move to an area that doesn't use the SOV mechanic or to a system with a higher sec status. If pilots do undock and defend then the mechanic has worked.
Again, I understand the underlying premise of the argument but at the same time I don't think going to extremes is always the best way to drive the conversation in a productive direction. I like how the new mechanics look on paper but I do think they need some adjustments, they are conflict drivers and they seem to combat apex forces, structure grinds, n+1 gameplay and stagnation by giving small groups the ability to fight/harass larger groups using hit and run tactics and guerrilla warfare. Defiantly not perfect but moving in the right direction. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15396
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:49:05 -
[2786] - Quote
Tamdra Beebort wrote:baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:
And you were talking about doing this across the whole of the south, that's 40 minutes for every structure in the south of the map...
That we can hit all at once. Under the current plans we could attack all of nullsec in a single weekend. I don't want to be rude because I haven't been in null for a few years but if you are out hitting all of the south then who is watching your back yard? Invading the south for a few days would let any frig hole that opens in your area dump potentially hundreds of the same kind of E-link frigs to do the same thing to your SOV. Don't get me wrong, I understand that we're moving to the extremes of the arguments to expose loop holes in mechanics but if you are busy harassing others in a different area doesn't that allow others to do the same thing to you? I agree that E-linked interceptors may be too easily used as a trolling ship but at the same time a larger ship fitted to deal with ceptors with a Entosis mod could be use to defend. At least a well tanked ship with its own Entosis link would stop the interceptor till a more robust fleet arrived or the aggressor simply gave up or was destroyed. The goal of these new mechanics are to encourage fights, keep pilots active and quell stagnation. When pilots are out trolling systems causing people to undock and defend their assets then that, to me, means that the mechanic is working as intended. If the defender doesn't defend then they should move to an area that doesn't use the SOV mechanic or to a system with a higher sec status. If pilots do undock and defend then the mechanic has worked. Again, I understand the underlying premise of the argument but at the same time I don't think going to extremes is always the best way to drive the conversation in a productive direction. I like how the new mechanics look on paper but I do think they need some adjustments, they are conflict drivers and they seem to combat apex forces, structure grinds, n+1 gameplay and stagnation by giving small groups the ability to fight/harass larger groups using hit and run tactics and guerrilla warfare. Defiantly not perfect but moving in the right direction.
There isnt anything extreme about it.
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10095
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:53:48 -
[2787] - Quote
Iudicium Vastus wrote:A carrot for the stick? What's the carrot currently?
Some make it sound like null is just a vast land of lower-than-hisec income with logistical nightmares on top. If so, then why are people out there now? And in such vast numbers in the coalitions?
Shouldn't the carrot just simply be the very same carrot that exists currently? There's gotta be one right, to have the alliance/coalition numbers null enjoys over other player entities?
That question gets asked a lot. It's backwards. The question isn't why are people renting, the question should be 'why aren't alliances using the space they have rather than renting it out'.
and no one said you can't make isk in null. You can, the point is that people who actually know what they are doing make the same isk elsewhere. Null would be much better if the people who take it could use it. But as it is, lots of 'landlord alliance' pilots use out of null alts to make isk.
I've told other folks this, the desire to see a better risk reward balance in null isn't about bring people out of high sec, lowsec/fw or wormholes, it's about bringing our ALTS out of those places lol. If you live in any other part of new eden its easy to use that sectors resources to 'live' there (ie wormhole residents , low seccers/FW pilots and high sec residents don't have to have alts in other places to maintain themselves, but in null if you want to keep up the tempo of pvp you usually do).
Here's a video of a guy using a cheap ship in low sec to make 3 times what a pirate battleship in null anoms would make in an hour. There is no way to make that kind of isk per hour in null in anything less than a Super Carrier. I rolled a Naga alt just to do low sec lvl 4s lol, have lost one naga in a year. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
272
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:57:57 -
[2788] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Question here is, will this change the meta? Is this something that will break the power of coalitions like the CFC? I doubt it. I really do. CFC for example is using marauding squadrons themselves to put certain regions under pressure to aid "friendlies" or the enemy of the enemy. PL, N3 and CFC do have the resources and the isks to get enough mercs going around and rf'ing regions, then put in a major force to secure an area.
I'm sure CFC and all the other large coalitions will adapt and survive. This change will make them reconsider their holdings and condense and retract releasing idle space for new hands to grab at. New hands that won't need to own OR risk a supercap fleet to do so - but they'll need to be damn tenacious to put up with the constant kerb stomping the big kids are gonna want to do to them for having the audacity to steal food from their tables.
And once the renter alliances see someone with some balls doing this, maybe even nibbling at their little bit of space to do so, then...? |
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:04:21 -
[2789] - Quote
Pok Nibin wrote:I see what you're trying to say here, but it is fraught with misconception which makes it difficult to respond to, point by point. I'd have to say (if you share this view) you'll just have to wait and see when people who understand these dynamics vigorously employ them, what the result becomes. Then you'll get it.
Conceptions are subjective, 0.0 a dynamic place and neither you nor me DO know what will happen - because we don't know what CCP is actually going to implement or more importantly, what players are going to do about it. Most of the people I've talked to (within a sov holding alliance) are disappointed and preparing one way or another - many among them who suffered "le fatigue" in a hope of a major change to come, to have a new things to fight for, etc. blabla.
Everybody living in 0.0 has been in a state of awaiting the new things to come for the past months. Everything got done pre-Phoebe, nothing major happened since then besides some skirmishes here and there, but everybody's sitting in a decent spot at home. Now instead of a somewhat thrilling "this gon be gud" or at least interesting attitude, people are just shaking their heads in disbelieve that this is supposed to be seriously what they've been doing for months at CCP.
I'd love to see the coalitions die and burn, to live in a 0.0 where medium sized alliances are fighting 250 vs. 250 fights with no TIDI, cap fleets out, no blue donut. Fighting your neighbours, no need to travel 60+ jumps to get some action. Probably just my own misconception of what I want Eve to be like in my ideal little world, but what to aim for in a game if not fun? I'm pretty sure ceptor sov **** every few hours is not what most of 0.0 residents consider fun and a worthwhile time spent in their favourite game. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
285
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:09:43 -
[2790] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote: I'm not sure there's even a change that could bring down a well organized medium business like the CFC
CCP must make that scale of fat entities unmanageable by nerfing jump fatigue for logistic again (forcing localized industry and localized market) and reducing the alliance size on the map with exponential sov fee. Outposts must be destroyable.
Please make outposts destroyable. We've wanted that for years.
We've also been arguing for localized industry and markets. Really, the problem you're going to run into here is: if you make it difficult to move a jump freighter across the map, who's going to have an easier time getting resupplied or buying/selling? The alliance with 200 guys and 4 jfs, or the one with 12,000 guys and hundreds of jfs to share the fatigue?
Once again: There is not, and in all of human history never has been a problem that cannot be solved better using the application of more brainpower. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12001
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:11:05 -
[2791] - Quote
Arrendis wrote: Once again: There is not, and in all of human history never has been a problem that cannot be solved better using the application of more brainpower.
Cancer?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tamdra Beebort
Terrestrial Trading Consortium of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:12:47 -
[2792] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
There isnt anything extreme about it.
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? It is the opposite of blue balling, seems like after the first week or so of E-linking a structure to just be chased off to another would drive burn-out up. GSF is great at organizing but individuals are already complaining about having to be vigilant just to keep their space. How long will it last? Is GSF capable of continuing a "burn Null" campaign for more than a month or so. I am trying to look at this objectively because I want the game to fun and interesting to everyone.
We shouldn't get tunnel vision on one specific hull or setup to the point that it blinds us from the point of the changes, fun. We want fun fights and hell camping a station for a week may be fun to one side and not the other but with these changes the fight has to continue in different parts of space and that will probably require more that a few ceptors with an E-link and if it doesn't then the losing side deserves to lose.
If you flood a region with interceptors and it causes lots of fights, some of which escalate in larger fights then the mechanic works and if you flood a region and the occupants don't defend and lose space the mechanic works. Either way I don't see how one group can keep up a sustained offensive of system trolling without suffering burnout or without causing larger fights. Either way there will be a winner and loser and both will be determined more by activity and less by inactivity. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15398
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:13:39 -
[2793] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arrendis wrote: Once again: There is not, and in all of human history never has been a problem that cannot be solved better using the application of more brainpower.
Cancer?
Invading Russia in the winter.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12001
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:14:21 -
[2794] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arrendis wrote: Once again: There is not, and in all of human history never has been a problem that cannot be solved better using the application of more brainpower.
Cancer? Invading Russia in the winter.
The perpetual motion law.
"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
285
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:14:37 -
[2795] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arrendis wrote: Once again: There is not, and in all of human history never has been a problem that cannot be solved better using the application of more brainpower.
Cancer?
Which has shown better results? 1 guy in a lab, or hundreds of research teams all over the place? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15398
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:14:59 -
[2796] - Quote
Tamdra Beebort wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There isnt anything extreme about it.
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up?
We have been doing it for the last 5 years.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1040
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:16:17 -
[2797] - Quote
Tamdra Beebort wrote: how long can you pilots keep it up?
I have absolutely no doubt that if an organization as large as Goonswarm can reliably entertain it's members by RF'ing the rest of nullsec every few days, then they absolutely will just because they can.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
285
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:17:38 -
[2798] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arrendis wrote: Once again: There is not, and in all of human history never has been a problem that cannot be solved better using the application of more brainpower.
Cancer? Invading Russia in the winter. The perpetual motion law.
Show me the solution to their of those 'problems' that came from a single mind, where teams haven't. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12001
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:18:47 -
[2799] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arrendis wrote: Once again: There is not, and in all of human history never has been a problem that cannot be solved better using the application of more brainpower.
Cancer? Invading Russia in the winter. The perpetual motion law. Show me the solution to their of those 'problems' that came from a single mind, where teams haven't.
None of them have been solved, period.
There is no cure for cancer, no one has ever successfully invaded Russia during winter, and perpetual motion is physically impossible.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:20:27 -
[2800] - Quote
Tamdra Beebort wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There isnt anything extreme about it.
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? It is the opposite of blue balling, seems like after the first week or so of E-linking a structure to just be chased off to another would drive burn-out up. GSF is great at organizing but individuals are already complaining about having to be vigilant just to keep their space. How long will it last? Is GSF capable of continuing a "burn Null" campaign for more than a month or so. I am trying to look at this objectively because I want the game to fun and interesting to everyone. We shouldn't get tunnel vision on one specific hull or setup to the point that it blinds us from the point of the changes, fun. We want fun fights and hell camping a station for a week may be fun to one side and not the other but with these changes the fight has to continue in different parts of space and that will probably require more that a few ceptors with an E-link and if it doesn't then the losing side deserves to lose. If you flood a region with interceptors and it causes lots of fights, some of which escalate in larger fights then the mechanic works and if you flood a region and the occupants don't defend and lose space the mechanic works. Either way I don't see how one group can keep up a sustained offensive of system trolling without suffering burnout or without causing larger fights. Either way there will be a winner and loser and both will be determined more by activity and less by inactivity.
I just noticed I wasn't posting on my main.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
Shuckstar
Taking Inc Swine Aviation Labs
296
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:29:08 -
[2801] - Quote
Two step wrote:Suggestions for addressing the timezone issues:
1) Expand the window to 8 hours 2) If you pick a 4 hour window, you also get a 2 hour window 10 hours from the end of your chosen window. This would mean that a US TZ window would have an opposite time that would be RUS friendly and an EU window would have AUS friendly times.
This, the prime time 4 hours needs to be changed to 8 at least.
CCP Greyscale wrote:"OK, I've read every post up to page 200, and we're getting to a point in this thread where there's not a lot of new concerns or suggestions being brought up. There will be future threads (and future blogs) as we tune details, but for now I want to thank you for all of your constructive input, and wish you a good weekend :)"
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2117
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:29:25 -
[2802] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arrendis wrote: Once again: There is not, and in all of human history never has been a problem that cannot be solved better using the application of more brainpower.
Cancer? Invading Russia in the winter. The perpetual motion law. Erectile dysfunction |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2117
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:30:28 -
[2803] - Quote
Shuckstar wrote:Two step wrote:Suggestions for addressing the timezone issues:
1) Expand the window to 8 hours 2) If you pick a 4 hour window, you also get a 2 hour window 10 hours from the end of your chosen window. This would mean that a US TZ window would have an opposite time that would be RUS friendly and an EU window would have AUS friendly times. This, the prime time 4 hours needs to be changed to 8 at least. Should be switched to the corps owning the structure. Offers very good flexibility. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12001
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:31:20 -
[2804] - Quote
Rowells wrote: Erectile dysfunction
That was actually solved, but interestingly enough it was solved by accident while trying to create heart medication.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:31:50 -
[2805] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tamdra Beebort wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There isnt anything extreme about it.
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? We have been doing it for the last 5 years.
Then this mechanic shouldn't be much of a change for your people with the exception that you may get more fights that aren't dependent on an apex force. Again, it sounds like the new mechanic would be working because either you win because they don't undock or they fight and GFs are had.
The point is to inject activity and these changes would seem to do that allowing the occupants of systems to determine the outcome by being active or inactive. Taking and holding sov by occupancy instead of HP.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
285
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:39:16 -
[2806] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:There is no cure for cancer, no one has ever successfully invaded Russia during winter, and perpetual motion is physically impossible.
Right, and so using them as examples of problems that were solved better using less brainpower doesn't work. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12003
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:41:59 -
[2807] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:There is no cure for cancer, no one has ever successfully invaded Russia during winter, and perpetual motion is physically impossible. Right, and so using them as examples of problems that were solved better using less brainpower doesn't work.
That wasn't the point. The point is to show that there are, in fact, problems that have not been solved with more brainpower.
Perpetual motion in particular is a big, big example of that. People have been trying to solve that one for almost two hundred years.
Cancer as well. Large groups have been researching that for decades, with no real effect besides killing a lot of white rats.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15399
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:42:43 -
[2808] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:
Then this mechanic shouldn't be much of a change for your people with the exception that you may get more fights that aren't dependent on an apex force. Again, it sounds like the new mechanic would be working because either you win because they don't undock or they fight and GFs are had.
The point is to inject activity and these changes would seem to do that allowing the occupants of systems to determine the outcome by being active or inactive. Taking and holding sov by occupancy instead of HP.
There are issues.
The first being the trollcepter puts too much dickery in our hands.
The second is there is no reason for any new organisation to bother trying to take a system for themselves.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Cancel Align NOW
Greater Order Of Destruction The Good Christian Society
467
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:43:15 -
[2809] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Shuckstar wrote:Two step wrote:Suggestions for addressing the timezone issues:
1) Expand the window to 8 hours 2) If you pick a 4 hour window, you also get a 2 hour window 10 hours from the end of your chosen window. This would mean that a US TZ window would have an opposite time that would be RUS friendly and an EU window would have AUS friendly times. This, the prime time 4 hours needs to be changed to 8 at least. Should be switched to the corps owning the structure. Offers very good flexibility.
I think that is good idea plus 1.
|
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
153
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:44:48 -
[2810] - Quote
Freeport mode is brilliant.
What mite b cool is if T1 ships exclusively could fit these modules . Whether it be a Velator, Dramiel, a Caracal, Retriever, Noctis, Orca, Bhaalgorn, Chimera, Rorqual, Moros, Spiketurd, Ragnarok, if it's T1 you're the man for the job. If you want Svipuls and Maledictions and Purifiers and Ishtars and Tengus with their fancy T2/T3 gimmicks, they can absolutely come along as support clearing gatecamps, murdering defenders, etc, but they just can't emit structure-weakening halitosis like you can. T1 hulls do also have the low(er) barrier to entry thing going for them.
idk lol v0v |
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
348
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:47:09 -
[2811] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Ok my bad, I somehow missed that. It gives ceptors a drawback to using an Entosis so therefore I remove my objection.
I would still personally like to see Entosis tied to battle cruisers, a ceptor can freely roam until he finds the ideal spot for 2 mins of uninterrupted "kill sov" whereas a battle cruiser is going to need some sort of a support fleet to even get the the location. Seems it would create more content than a few ceptors roaming around taking sov. Ceptors are only gonna be able to take undefended sov. If it's defended then you can bring all your other ships to the party even caps and supercaps if the defence is strong enough to warrant it - although the multiple capture points and shifting positions of engagement for the fight as it comes out of RF will mean you'll want to split up your blob of caps into smaller parts. I see that as a drawback for smaller groups wishing to take and hold sov. A large group will more easily cover multiple structures coming out of RF whereas a small group is going to find defending multiple positions much more difficult.
My reasons for wanting to see the Entosis module restricted to certain hulls (Battle cruisers or Command ships) is for the smaller groups. If 4 or 5 ceptors can shoot around and RF all your sov in a few mins, then defending it once it comes out of RF is that much harder. If the group wanting to take sov from you has to risk a fleet to RF (1 command ship RFing with Entosis is gonna die fast) it brings more content (fights) than having to chase off a few ceptors.
- - - - - - - - - - - The idea of timers is not all that bad but like everything in life, the best intentions can become void if something comes up. Picking the timer for a small group who feel they can cover a TZ well enough to protect their assets, may well blow up in their face (literally) if key members or enough line members have exams at school or are required to do overtime or the wife (or husband) throws a tizzy and shuts off your computer. The initial RFing efforts with Entosis need to mean something. It should generate conflict, as much as protecting an R64, if not more.
I also feel there should be no fatigue if you are using jump bridges in your own sov. Yes this will help the larger groups quickly deploy to save their sov but that same benefit goes to smaller groups as well. If we end up with 4 or 5 structures coming out close together and can freely use a jump bridge to move from one to the other, we as a small group stand more chance of holding our sov than we would if we had to move by gates and risk gate camps setup by those wanting our sov. I'm happy to fight an enemy that is trying to RF a station we own but having to fight through gate camps to get there is going to make it much harder for small groups.
- - - - - - - - - People are asking for benefits to holding sov - No fatigue in your sov space is a big incentive.
It would have to have a jump limit, say 4 or 5 jumps free then you start accruing fatigue at normal rates. It could also be tied to your "home system", so as long as you are using jump bridges owned by your alliance within the region of your home system you get no fatigue for the 1st X amount of jumps. Outside your home region you get fatigue as usual.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:49:12 -
[2812] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Tamdra Beebort wrote: how long can you pilots keep it up? I have absolutely no doubt that if an organization as large as Goonswarm can reliably entertain it's members by RF'ing the rest of nullsec every few days, then they absolutely will just because they can.
That is the point isn't it? Entertaining your pilots through activity and conflict not sitting idle and docking up when a neut enters system. As it is, docking up is a viable counter to neuts in system but soon docking up will cause you to lose you sov because the occupants are not active.
I am looking forward to watching GSF burn null to the ground because it makes the game interesting. I might even jump back into null and for the record I hope they do burn this ***** to the ground just for the tears.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Icikurbt
DucKtape Unlimited SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:51:44 -
[2813] - Quote
So out of all of this is great for what you all are doing but you are going to ruin the dreads and make them useless. Does this mean your going to remove them too? Or are they the next ship your going to be revamping so they are more usefull, faster to move, and get into warp, faster locking time, jump fatigue reduction and lower the siege module duration and cost. And in doing so we would need to lock more targets while in siege.
I would like to see how this goes or just turn them into dread Hulks but you would have to create capital strip miners and include siege bonus for them... |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:58:45 -
[2814] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
Then this mechanic shouldn't be much of a change for your people with the exception that you may get more fights that aren't dependent on an apex force. Again, it sounds like the new mechanic would be working because either you win because they don't undock or they fight and GFs are had.
The point is to inject activity and these changes would seem to do that allowing the occupants of systems to determine the outcome by being active or inactive. Taking and holding sov by occupancy instead of HP.
There are issues. The first being the trollcepter puts too much dickery in our hands. The second is there is no reason for any new organisation to bother trying to take a system for themselves.
It does give you all a lot of asshat tools to play with but I don't always see that as a bad thing. Good organization, incentives and recruitment should be rewarded with the ability to pull tears and create chaos.
What would be your fix for the trollcepter?
As for new organisations, my guess would be that phase three would be some type of system buff that offers sov holding corp/alliances a reason to hold sov. They have and/are limiting apex and force projection and we are in the process of "fixing" sov mechanics and the next logical step would be to develop a way to make that sov worth holding. Through adding incentives that work off of the newly developed mechanics by introducing new structures and methods of upgrades that work off of those mechanics.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:58:51 -
[2815] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
Then this mechanic shouldn't be much of a change for your people with the exception that you may get more fights that aren't dependent on an apex force. Again, it sounds like the new mechanic would be working because either you win because they don't undock or they fight and GFs are had.
The point is to inject activity and these changes would seem to do that allowing the occupants of systems to determine the outcome by being active or inactive. Taking and holding sov by occupancy instead of HP.
There are issues. The first being the trollcepter puts too much dickery in our hands. The second is there is no reason for any new organisation to bother trying to take a system for themselves. Let's pretend CCP does not allow frigates or T3 cruisers to fit or even carry in cargo this module. What are the other issues with just the module? |
Pinkelton
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:00:33 -
[2816] - Quote
:Clap, Clap:
Nice way to solve the Null problem. Who at CCP said lets just take FW mechanics (that aren't really fun by the way, they are just very exploitable) and apply them to Nullsec.
The freeport idea is actually a good one. Hell camps to keep people in and out would be interesting ways to pass the time.
The Halitosis laser should be large and the smallest hull you can cram it on should be a BC. That will solve a lot of problems with people just being A-holes and provide a roll for the forgotten warhorses of yesterwars.
CCP you guys still don't understand that without providing an incentive to actually take and hold Null that it will remain a giant blue doughnut. Right now the big isk is still in highsec. You used to publicly claim you wanted to move people out to the sandbox well please keep it a sandbox. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:03:05 -
[2817] - Quote
In regards to null sov. Would it be enough of an incentive if the best level 4 mission agent or high sec incursion farming was still not as good as the worst null system for income?
I'm just trying to get the basic vibe on the issue from everyone. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15399
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:05:38 -
[2818] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:
What would be your fix for the trollcepter?
Don't allow it.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15401
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:09:35 -
[2819] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:In regards to null sov. Would it be enough of an incentive if the best level 4 mission agent or high sec incursion farming was still not as good as the worst null system for income?
I'm just trying to get the basic vibe on the issue from everyone.
What we need is for the reward to be higher than in highsec (not by a huge amount, simple have it be on par with 0.0 level 4 missions) and to be able to host a corp/alliance in one system, 10 people is simply not enough.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
272
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:09:45 -
[2820] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:What would be your fix for the trollcepter? Don't allow it. And what would you say if large alliances were even more vulnerable to it by forcing them to have longer primetimes? I'm thinking 16-24 hours for someone of the size of the CFC/N3
And ofc disregarding any attempts at gaming the system with buffer alliances etc which can be countered with further limitations on sov tba. |
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:10:12 -
[2821] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
What would be your fix for the trollcepter?
Don't allow it.
If CCP wants to encourage actual fights, then allowing an interceptor or nullified ship to be able to flip things will only cause frustration and not lead to many kills. Sure, they might trigger some timers, but it is highly unlikely that the aggressing group would show up to actually flip it.
|
Cancel Align NOW
Greater Order Of Destruction The Good Christian Society
467
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:11:17 -
[2822] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
What would be your fix for the trollcepter?
Don't allow it.
You are dealing with CCP. They will allow it then in 12 months after much trolling, admit that it is overpowered and tinker with its align time. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:11:46 -
[2823] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: And what would you say if large alliances were even more vulnerable to it by forcing them to have longer primetimes? I'm thinking 16-24 hours for someone of the size of the CFC/N3
And ofc disregarding any attempts at gaming the system with buffer alliances etc which can be countered with further limitations on sov tba.
It would be impossible to realistically code in a varying time system that actually works. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12005
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:12:05 -
[2824] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:What would be your fix for the trollcepter? Don't allow it. And what would you say if large alliances were even more vulnerable to it by forcing them to have longer primetimes? I'm thinking 16-24 hours for someone of the size of the CFC/N3 And ofc disregarding any attempts at gaming the system with buffer alliances etc which can be countered with further limitations on sov tba.
Why do you think that having sov should be a job? I'm really curious about that, because it seems like you're all in favor of mechanics that basically strap sov owners to their chairs with intravenous drips in their arms.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:15:11 -
[2825] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:What would be your fix for the trollcepter? Don't allow it. And what would you say if large alliances were even more vulnerable to it by forcing them to have longer primetimes? I'm thinking 16-24 hours for someone of the size of the CFC/N3 And ofc disregarding any attempts at gaming the system with buffer alliances etc which can be countered with further limitations on sov tba. Why do you think that having sov should be a job? I'm really curious about that, because it seems like you're all in favor of mechanics that basically strap sov owners to their chairs with intravenous drips in their arms.
Holding sov should be a job, not one that takes up all your time but it shouldn't be a cake walk either. I think making the prime time longer for larger groups would be a good change. Maybe a max of like 12 hours but the member count should be tied to prime time length.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:15:23 -
[2826] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:What would be your fix for the trollcepter? Don't allow it. And what would you say if large alliances were even more vulnerable to it by forcing them to have longer primetimes? I'm thinking 16-24 hours for someone of the size of the CFC/N3 And ofc disregarding any attempts at gaming the system with buffer alliances etc which can be countered with further limitations on sov tba. Why do you think that having sov should be a job? I'm really curious about that, because it seems like you're all in favor of mechanics that basically strap sov owners to their chairs with intravenous drips in their arms.
because it's easy for him as wh guy to be happy about it and these changes - he won't have to live with it. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
272
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:15:32 -
[2827] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Eli Apol wrote: And what would you say if large alliances were even more vulnerable to it by forcing them to have longer primetimes? I'm thinking 16-24 hours for someone of the size of the CFC/N3
And ofc disregarding any attempts at gaming the system with buffer alliances etc which can be countered with further limitations on sov tba.
It would be impossible to realistically code in a varying time system that actually works. Humour me, imagine it is (and I've already stated ideas that would make it possible earlier in the thread)
Now your victims of dickery 24/7 versus being able to inflict it on others only during their 4hr time periods unless you downscale your alliance or number of systems.
So now what's the problem with ceptors? |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
272
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:17:13 -
[2828] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:because it's easy for him as wh guy to be happy about it and these changes - he won't have to live with it. Nah I just think that saying 'Cuz we can **** around with it because we have enough members to easily cover a 4hr period once a day and still be dicks'
is just an encouragement to say: OK then, deal with 8, 16, 24hrs of it if you can cope with a meagre 4 so easily.
If you can't cope, then break down into smaller components where you can manage smaller spaces with fewer members.
Rather than caving into the dickishness...
edit: also I'm admittedly a former WHer, doesn't mean I still live there with any/all of my toons. |
Cancel Align NOW
Greater Order Of Destruction The Good Christian Society
467
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:18:18 -
[2829] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:What would be your fix for the trollcepter? Don't allow it. And what would you say if large alliances were even more vulnerable to it by forcing them to have longer primetimes? I'm thinking 16-24 hours for someone of the size of the CFC/N3 And ofc disregarding any attempts at gaming the system with buffer alliances etc which can be countered with further limitations on sov tba. Why do you think that having sov should be a job? I'm really curious about that, because it seems like you're all in favor of mechanics that basically strap sov owners to their chairs with intravenous drips in their arms. Holding sov should be a job, not one that takes up all your time but it shouldn't be a cake walk either. I think making the prime time longer for larger groups would be a good change. Maybe a max of like 12 hours but the member count should be tied to prime time length.
Where is the incentive to make players want to do that job? I agree that 4 hours is too narrow and one flat time frame does not scale, but the core of Eve is social dynamic between individuals and attempting to break that core up with no carrots will not help Eve Online. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15403
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:19:32 -
[2830] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:because it's easy for him as wh guy to be happy about it and these changes - he won't have to live with it. Nah I just think that saying 'Cuz we can **** around with it because we have enough members to easily cover a 4hr period once a day and still be dicks' is just an encouragement to say: OK then, deal with 8, 16, 24hrs of it if you can cope with a meagre 4 so easily. If you can't cope, then break down into smaller components where you can manage smaller spaces with fewer members. Rather than caving into the dickishness...
If you have to implement different rules for different people then you have lost the argument.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12006
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:21:23 -
[2831] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote: Holding sov should be a job, not one that takes up all your time but it shouldn't be a cake walk either. I think making the prime time longer for larger groups would be a good change. Maybe a max of like 12 hours but the member count should be tied to prime time length.
It's already 4 hours, per structure every day.
All it takes is a few cov ops frigates cloaked in their systems. When I have a few minutes, I reinforce their TCUs and they have to spend 4 hours there the following day on the off chance I show up and ninja their stuff. Per structure.
I can do this with station services too, with basically no recourse for the defender. They can. not. stop. me. from reinforcing their stuff while they sleep, unless they just don't sleep.
And you would rather it was 12 hours, per structure, every day.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:21:38 -
[2832] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
What would be your fix for the trollcepter?
Don't allow it. If CCP wants to encourage actual fights, then allowing an interceptor or nullified ship to be able to flip things will only cause frustration and not lead to many kills. Sure, they might trigger some timers, but it is highly unlikely that the aggressing group would show up to actually flip it.
I understand the problem with interceptors and why they don't encourage fights. How far should we go with it? Should covert ops, T3 cruisers and black ops be restricted as well? They can be just as dangerous or even more so than an interceptor because they can actually put up a fight if the defender happens to show up in force.
I do like the idea of the E-link being a BC and up module but I also like the options that fitting it to any ship offers. I am to the point where it should be a deployable that can be scooped up, that way at least there is a higher chance of it being destroyed or lost if the defenders show up.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:22:26 -
[2833] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:because it's easy for him as wh guy to be happy about it and these changes - he won't have to live with it. Nah I just think that saying 'Cuz we can **** around with it because we have enough members to easily cover a 4hr period once a day and still be dicks' is just an encouragement to say: OK then, deal with 8, 16, 24hrs of it if you can cope with a meagre 4 so easily. If you can't cope, then break down into smaller components where you can manage smaller spaces with fewer members.
Yes, fewer numbers to cover more nodes and timers is definetely the answer :-) and n3 and cfc are no alliances, they are coalitions - moving alts out of the sov holding alliance won't be hard to circumvene number related restrictions - they'll just be blue. Corp related TZ sound good on paper but alliance leaders will strictly order uniform tz settings to streamline ops and ctas. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
272
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:22:55 -
[2834] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:because it's easy for him as wh guy to be happy about it and these changes - he won't have to live with it. Nah I just think that saying 'Cuz we can **** around with it because we have enough members to easily cover a 4hr period once a day and still be dicks' is just an encouragement to say: OK then, deal with 8, 16, 24hrs of it if you can cope with a meagre 4 so easily. If you can't cope, then break down into smaller components where you can manage smaller spaces with fewer members. Rather than caving into the dickishness... If you have to implement different rules for different people then you have lost the argument. I think not answering questions is also a sign of struggling for answers that don't make you look worried.
More sov = longer primetimes. Simple rule which just needs a few minor tweaks to prevent you gaming around it. Larger alliances can and should be vulnerable over longer periods than 100 people that all come from the same country wanting to stake a claim in a couple of systems. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:23:04 -
[2835] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Humour me, imagine it is (and I've already stated ideas that would make it possible earlier in the thread)
Now your victims of dickery 24/7 versus being able to inflict it on others only during their 4hr time periods unless you downscale your alliance or number of systems.
So now what's the problem with ceptors?
The very nature of interceptors in general do not generate conflict. A roaming gang of interceptors is not looking to fight anything that shoots back. They are designed to pick off people not paying attention or being utilized as fast tackle. Enabling such a ship to be able to flip sov is just asking for entire regions to be burned down without fights.
There is no place that you can force an interceptor to fight because they are immune to bubbles. They are already largely fit to be unlockable due to server tick times. Therefore, the only way to actually fight interceptors is if they want to fight you- which happens basically never.
I am all for more destruction of everything in Eve. However, allowing interceptors (and even nullified t3s) to be able to flip sov like this is just asking for us to burn down most of sov space.
Don't take this incorrectly either- if it stayed as-is, we would utilize interceptors to their maximum potential to burn everything down. Deklein has some of the highest density of any space in the game- aside from random roaming gangs coming through our space (mostly in interceptors or stealth bombers), there wouldn't be a way for someone to successfully disrupt our space, aside from starting the initial timers. |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:24:26 -
[2836] - Quote
Cancel Align NOW wrote:
Where is the incentive to make players want to do that job? I agree that 4 hours is too narrow and one flat time frame does not scale, but the core of Eve is social dynamic between individuals and attempting to break that core up with no carrots will not help Eve Online.
That will probably come with phase three, there needs to be something because everything else will be taken care of if the changes are worked out and implemented.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
272
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:25:41 -
[2837] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Humour me, imagine it is (and I've already stated ideas that would make it possible earlier in the thread)
Now your victims of dickery 24/7 versus being able to inflict it on others only during their 4hr time periods unless you downscale your alliance or number of systems.
So now what's the problem with ceptors? The very nature of interceptors in general do not generate conflict. A roaming gang of interceptors is not looking to fight anything that shoots back. They are designed to pick off people not paying attention or being utilized as fast tackle. Enabling such a ship to be able to flip sov is just asking for entire regions to be burned down without fights. There is no place that you can force an interceptor to fight because they are immune to bubbles. They are already largely fit to be unlockable due to server tick times. Therefore, the only way to actually fight interceptors is if they want to fight you- which happens basically never. I am all for more destruction of everything in Eve. However, allowing interceptors (and even nullified t3s) to be able to flip sov like this is just asking for us to burn down most of sov space. Don't take this incorrectly either- if it stayed as-is, we would utilize interceptors to their maximum potential to burn everything down. Deklein has some of the highest density of any space in the game- aside from random roaming gangs coming through our space (mostly in interceptors or stealth bombers), there wouldn't be a way for someone to successfully disrupt our space, aside from starting the initial timers. They force defenders to undock = they can engage or run away to another system. There's a chance for the attackers to engage in a fight whenever they feel like it just by putting a link on a structure. Sure *some* people are gonna troll and never actually fight because it's the same as blueing all their neighbours, but people that actually want to fight are gonna use this everyday to drag people from their stations and away from the undock radius.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:25:58 -
[2838] - Quote
Also something to remember- if interceptors are starting these timers, then we'd have 27.5 minutes to react to them. There is no way an interceptor gang would stay on grid for 27 minutes to defend the initial countdown to even get to the siege timer. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12006
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:26:13 -
[2839] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote: I understand the problem with interceptors and why they don't encourage fights. How far should we go with it?
Fitting it should be sufficiently hard as to keep it out of the reach of every ship in the frigate size class.
"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
272
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:27:56 -
[2840] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Also something to remember- if interceptors are starting these timers, then we'd have 27.5 minutes to react to them. There is no way an interceptor gang would stay on grid for 27 minutes to defend the initial countdown to even get to the siege timer. Exactly...wait a minute...a goon finally understands? |
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
461
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:28:44 -
[2841] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:[They force defenders to undock = they can engage or run away to another system. There's a chance for the attackers to engage in a fight whenever they feel like it just by putting a link on a structure. Sure *some* people are gonna troll and never actually fight because it's the same as blueing all their neighbours, but people that actually want to fight are gonna use this everyday to drag people from their stations and away from the undock radius.
I'd like to go on record saying I'd be all for allowing interceptors to use these if NPC null stations can also have their services disabled. Otherwise, what is the point of basing out of any sov null station rather than a nearby npc station?
If you're trying to argue that interceptors lead to more fights, then it should work both ways- both to people in sov null AND to people in npc null. If not, you're just trying to argue for a targetted nerf to one group of players.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12006
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:29:29 -
[2842] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:There's a chance for the attackers to engage in a fight whenever they feel like it just by putting a link on a structure.
That's true whether interceptors and cov ops frigates are allowed to use it or not. It's not magically true about frigates and untrue about cruisers and battleships.
The only difference is whether the attacker risks anything, ever. Because if it can be fitted on frigates, the attacker has a cheap, easy solution that risks basically nothing.
Go ahead and let us know right now if you think that should be the case.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:29:54 -
[2843] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote: Holding sov should be a job, not one that takes up all your time but it shouldn't be a cake walk either. I think making the prime time longer for larger groups would be a good change. Maybe a max of like 12 hours but the member count should be tied to prime time length.
It's already 4 hours, per structure every day. All it takes is a few cov ops frigates cloaked in their systems. When I have a few minutes, I reinforce their TCUs and they have to spend 4 hours there the following day on the off chance I show up and ninja their stuff. Per structure. I can do this with station services too, with basically no recourse for the defender. They can. not. stop. me. from reinforcing their stuff while they sleep, unless they just don't sleep. And you would rather it was 12 hours, per structure, every day.
baltec1 wrote:Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
461
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:30:30 -
[2844] - Quote
Like I've always said- I'm always in favor of more destruction of everything, even if it's other CFC players.
Destruction drives demand in eve, which benefits everyone. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15404
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:32:30 -
[2845] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: I think not answering questions is also a sign of struggling for answers that don't make you look worried.
More sov = longer primetimes. Simple rule which just needs a few minor tweaks to prevent you gaming around it. Larger alliances can and should be vulnerable over longer periods than 100 people that all come from the same country wanting to stake a claim in a couple of systems.
I did answer, you just dont like what I said.
Your plan is ******** and does nothing good for the game. We want more conflict and trollcepters will provide no conflict at all. We are trying to stop CCP from giving us bad tools we can abuse yet here you are, trying to keep these tools that we have already stated we would abuse heavily.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12006
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:33:09 -
[2846] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote: If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.
That, or it means that they've succeeded in the objective of the rebalance, take only as much sov as you can reasonably defend.
The goal here isn't "make it unviable to have large groups", you realize.
"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
272
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:35:55 -
[2847] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote: I think not answering questions is also a sign of struggling for answers that don't make you look worried.
More sov = longer primetimes. Simple rule which just needs a few minor tweaks to prevent you gaming around it. Larger alliances can and should be vulnerable over longer periods than 100 people that all come from the same country wanting to stake a claim in a couple of systems.
I did answer, you just dont like what I said. Your plan is ******** and does nothing good for the game. We want more conflict and trollcepters will provide no conflict at all. We are trying to stop CCP from giving us bad tools we can abuse yet here you are, trying to keep these tools that we have already stated we would abuse heavily. Trollceptors - when used as you intend - force no conflict.
Anyone else chucking a link on a CFC structure in any of your systems (during your nice long, bloated primetime period) who actually wants a fight WILL force a response. Just because you're so risk averse doesn't mean the rest of the players are. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15404
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:36:21 -
[2848] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:
If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.
That only means we can mess with even more people for longer. We are one of the few organisations that can effectively defend round the clock.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15404
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:37:53 -
[2849] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote: I think not answering questions is also a sign of struggling for answers that don't make you look worried.
More sov = longer primetimes. Simple rule which just needs a few minor tweaks to prevent you gaming around it. Larger alliances can and should be vulnerable over longer periods than 100 people that all come from the same country wanting to stake a claim in a couple of systems.
I did answer, you just dont like what I said. Your plan is ******** and does nothing good for the game. We want more conflict and trollcepters will provide no conflict at all. We are trying to stop CCP from giving us bad tools we can abuse yet here you are, trying to keep these tools that we have already stated we would abuse heavily. Trollceptors - when used as you intend - force no conflict. Anyone else chucking a link on a CFC structure in any of your systems (during your nice long, bloated primetime period) who actually wants a fight WILL force a response. Just because you're so risk averse doesn't mean the rest of the players are.
The risk adverse mantra doesn't work on me.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
272
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:41:30 -
[2850] - Quote
Great, you're not risk averse and you don't mind defending for 24hrs a day, it'll be easy for you with multi-TZ coverage.
I guess the next thing is deciding how short a period small alliances need to deal with this for, maybe just 1hr a day for the single system guys? |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15404
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:46:03 -
[2851] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Great, you're not risk averse and you don't mind defending for 24hrs a day, it'll be easy for you with multi-TZ coverage.
I guess the next thing is deciding how short a period small alliances need to deal with this for, maybe just 1hr a day for the single system guys?
They deal with it for as long as everyone else.
Having different rules for different people is just ******** and a great way to kill any sort of revival of null. Face it, interceptors fitting this sov laser is a terrible idea and needs to be purged.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Worfeh Dallocort
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:47:34 -
[2852] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: I am doing my damndest to catch up with this thread. But you lot keep writing faster than I can read. When I am full caught up I will start actual comments and answers but like ISD Ezwal, I am reading it all.
Every damn post.
m
Or... Instead of reading all the posts happening now and gauging public opinion first as to how to spin what you did in the past, let people know now what your advice to CCP already WAS and to what level the CSM was consulted on this PRIOR to the dev blog announcement? I think that's where people are disappointed with the CSM right now. We expected you guys to have immediate releases ready to go once the dev blog hit to say "we talked to CCP about this and we said 'X"', BEFORE seeing which way the wind is blowing... Now you are just going to spin based on what public reaction is now, rather than divulge what your thought leadership with CCP was. A pox on all of you.
Best post |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
272
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:48:01 -
[2853] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Great, you're not risk averse and you don't mind defending for 24hrs a day, it'll be easy for you with multi-TZ coverage.
I guess the next thing is deciding how short a period small alliances need to deal with this for, maybe just 1hr a day for the single system guys? They deal with it for as long as everyone else. Having different rules for different people is just ******** and a great way to kill any sort of revival of null. Face it, interceptors fitting this sov laser is a terrible idea and needs to be purged. No, we were hypothesising about large groups having to defend for l-o-n-g-e-r periods because they have such great TZ coverage that it'll be easy for them to deal with every single drunken interceptor pilot flying through their space 24hrs a day and challenging them to hold their sov.
You sounded so keen before, what's up?
The only bad idea is allowing null blocs to setup checkpoint charlies all around their barren systems and prevent anything other than the only ships that can penetrate this wall from being able to do anything. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15404
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:52:35 -
[2854] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: No, we were hypothesising about large groups having to defend for l-o-n-g-e-r periods because they have such great TZ coverage that it'll be easy for them to deal with every single drunken interceptor pilot flying through their space 24hrs a day and challenging them to hold their sov.
You sounded so keen before, what's up?
This would **** over the likes of brave who don't have our level of organisation. This is before we get to the simple fact that nobody would like your idea. We are at least trying to make CCPs idea work while you are trying to break Null even more than it is now. You aren't hypothesising anything, you are just trying to destroy goons because at some point we have touched you in a bad way and you don't care how badly you would break the game to do it.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Alcorak
Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists
64
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:54:33 -
[2855] - Quote
While I'm all for killing off structure grinding fleets, these capping modules shouldnt be able to fit to a frigate. Also, one person alone should have a very difficult time capping a sov structure in really any subcap. At least force a gang of 5 or so for the initial timer.
Another question....what the hell are sov bills for anyways lore-wise (obviously they're an isk sink). I mean really, are we paying concord for the pleasure of controlling a region that concord wants nothing to do with anyways? Do sov structures use 1 ISK bills as a power source and need to be kept in perpetual supply? Here's a better idea: they pay for a gang of mercenary NPCs that defend your space. NPCs that maybe dont deal a ton of dps, but can at least melt a small frig gang, while 3 cruisers+ 2 t1 logi should be OK. Spawn them when one of these capping modules is activated. Maybe even link the spawn strength to ihub indecies.
But seriously, dont allow one frig per system to **** an alliance in minutes. That is nonsense. "Sorry guys, we can't roam tonight. We should probably split up and jump in frigates in case all those faction war rifters log in and attack our sov again" |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
273
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:58:48 -
[2856] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:This would **** over the likes of brave who don't have our level or organisation. This is before we get to the simple fact that nobody would like your idea. We are at least trying to make CCPs idea work while you are trying to break Null even more than it is now. Brave don't hold anywhere near as much Sov as you, they'd probably be down around 8hrs a day or something and I'm sure they'd love undocking to fight people contesting them - they already do that without needing supercaps on grid for them to n+1.
The reason YOU don't like the idea is because you realise that you'd have to consolidate down to a smaller area because in spite of your bravado you couldn't hold as much space as you currently do 24/7...which is the point of the idea in the first place.
And yes, there would have to be suitable rewards for your diligence. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
715
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:02:58 -
[2857] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote: Holding sov should be a job, not one that takes up all your time but it shouldn't be a cake walk either. I think making the prime time longer for larger groups would be a good change. Maybe a max of like 12 hours but the member count should be tied to prime time length.
It's already 4 hours, per structure every day. All it takes is a few cov ops frigates cloaked in their systems. When I have a few minutes, I reinforce their TCUs and they have to spend 4 hours there the following day on the off chance I show up and ninja their stuff. Per structure. I can do this with station services too, with basically no recourse for the defender. They can. not. stop. me. from reinforcing their stuff while they sleep, unless they just don't sleep. And you would rather it was 12 hours, per structure, every day.
I'm not sure you understand. If you attempt to RF something, the entire alliance gets a mail. Then they have half an hour to get a single person to the structure you are attempting to RF to kill you in your cov ops. Then, tomorrow, they can go about their business as normal, nothing will have changed.
Nobody needs to babysit structures, if space is occupied all the defenders need to do is kill whoever is trying to RF their structure, no babysitting required.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:08:51 -
[2858] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote: If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.
That, or it means that they've succeeded in the objective of the rebalance, take only as much sov as you can reasonably defend. The goal here isn't "make it unviable to have large groups", you realize.
I do realize that and if a large group can't defend it's borders it is either bad or too large to work as a cohesive group and should reevaluate it's sov holding.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15404
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:09:10 -
[2859] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:baltec1 wrote:This would **** over the likes of brave who don't have our level or organisation. This is before we get to the simple fact that nobody would like your idea. We are at least trying to make CCPs idea work while you are trying to break Null even more than it is now. Brave don't hold anywhere near as much Sov as you, they'd probably be down around 8hrs a day or something and I'm sure they'd love undocking to fight people contesting them - they already do that without needing supercaps on grid for them to n+1. The reason YOU don't like the idea is because you realise that you'd have to consolidate down to a smaller area because in spite of your bravado you couldn't hold as much space as you currently do 24/7...which is the point of the idea in the first place. And yes, there would have to be suitable rewards for your diligence.
Us giving up space is a given. Brave infact have more pilots than we do so they need more space than we do so, they are ****** under your system. Infact, just about everyone in null would suffer more under your system than we would.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:11:31 -
[2860] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.
That only means we can mess with even more people for longer. We are one of the few organisations that can effectively defend round the clock.
You would probably be one of the few organisations that has a 12 hour prime time.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15404
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:12:19 -
[2861] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.
That only means we can mess with even more people for longer. We are one of the few organisations that can effectively defend round the clock. You would probably be one of the few organisations that has a 12 hour prime time.
Brave would have more than us.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
273
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:12:59 -
[2862] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:baltec1 wrote:This would **** over the likes of brave who don't have our level or organisation. This is before we get to the simple fact that nobody would like your idea. We are at least trying to make CCPs idea work while you are trying to break Null even more than it is now. Brave don't hold anywhere near as much Sov as you, they'd probably be down around 8hrs a day or something and I'm sure they'd love undocking to fight people contesting them - they already do that without needing supercaps on grid for them to n+1. The reason YOU don't like the idea is because you realise that you'd have to consolidate down to a smaller area because in spite of your bravado you couldn't hold as much space as you currently do 24/7...which is the point of the idea in the first place. And yes, there would have to be suitable rewards for your diligence. Us giving up space is a given. Brave infact have more pilots than we do so they need more space than we do so, they are ****** under your system. Infact, just about everyone in null would suffer more under your system than we would. Good, I'm not pointing a finger at Goons, it's the whole donut that needs to be chipped away at.
Also I'll point out that 24hrs was just to prove a point that it is completely unfeasible to hold the whole map and go around dicking about in trollceptors with no repercussions the whole time. Something like 1-16 hrs scaling by number of systems held could be reasonable though? |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
715
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:13:56 -
[2863] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Great, you're not risk averse and you don't mind defending for 24hrs a day, it'll be easy for you with multi-TZ coverage.
I guess the next thing is deciding how short a period small alliances need to deal with this for, maybe just 1hr a day for the single system guys? They deal with it for as long as everyone else. Having different rules for different people is just ******** and a great way to kill any sort of revival of null. Face it, interceptors fitting this sov laser is a terrible idea and needs to be purged.
I agree that different rules for different people is not a good system.
I do not agree with removing the sov laser from inties.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:18:14 -
[2864] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.
That only means we can mess with even more people for longer. We are one of the few organisations that can effectively defend round the clock. You would probably be one of the few organisations that has a 12 hour prime time. Brave would have more than us.
Then they should **** or get off the pot. I don't care who it is. Defend it or lose it.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15406
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:19:18 -
[2865] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Good, I'm not pointing a finger at Goons, it's the whole donut that needs to be chipped away at.
Also I'll point out that 24hrs was just to prove a point that it is completely unfeasible to hold the whole map and go around dicking about in trollceptors with no repercussions the whole time. Something like 1-16 hrs scaling by number of systems held could be reasonable though?
The blue doughnut doesn't exist.
Tell me, where does PL factor into your plan? What would you do if we move into NPC null? What is stopping RVB from doing exactly what we are warning you about with trollcepters?
Your idea not only makes the game worse for everyone in null but also ignores the problems we are pointing out.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15407
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:21:24 -
[2866] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
I do not agree with removing the sov laser from inties.
Then reduce the range on the t2 laser so we cant make the trollcepter.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
273
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:24:45 -
[2867] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Good, I'm not pointing a finger at Goons, it's the whole donut that needs to be chipped away at.
Also I'll point out that 24hrs was just to prove a point that it is completely unfeasible to hold the whole map and go around dicking about in trollceptors with no repercussions the whole time. Something like 1-16 hrs scaling by number of systems held could be reasonable though?
The blue doughnut doesn't exist. Tell me, where does PL factor into your plan? What would you do if we move into NPC null? What is stopping RVB from doing exactly what we are warning you about with trollcepters? Your idea not only makes the game worse for everyone in null but also ignores the problems we are pointing out. Give better rewards for sov to balance it out.
If RvB want to come roam in intys and force fights it sounds great. It sounds a whole bunch better than them having to fight a static blockade on an entry system where they'll just get out blobbed because you don't require any depth to your defences unless you're vulnerable to ceptors penetrating them.
What's your idea to counter a walled defence around undefended systems? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15407
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:27:42 -
[2868] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Give better rewards for sov to balance it out.
If RvB want to come roam in intys and force fights it sounds great. It sounds a whole bunch better than them having to fight a static blockade on an entry system where they'll just get out blobbed because you don't require any depth to your defences unless you're vulnerable to ceptors penetrating them.
The whole point of the trollcepter is to avoid fights.
Eli Apol wrote: What's your idea to counter a walled defence around undefended systems?
Cov ops and small-mid gangs.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12008
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:28:23 -
[2869] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: What's your idea to counter a walled defence around undefended systems?
For my part, the same way I used to afk cloak people.
Wormholes.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:33:13 -
[2870] - Quote
Tamdra Beebort wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There isnt anything extreme about it.
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? It is the opposite of blue balling, seems like after the first week or so of E-linking a structure to just be chased off to another would drive burn-out up. GSF is great at organizing but individuals are already complaining about having to be vigilant just to keep their space. How long will it last? Is GSF capable of continuing a "burn Null" campaign for more than a month or so. I am trying to look at this objectively because I want the game to fun and interesting to everyone. We shouldn't get tunnel vision on one specific hull or setup to the point that it blinds us from the point of the changes, fun. We want fun fights and hell camping a station for a week may be fun to one side and not the other but with these changes the fight has to continue in different parts of space and that will probably require more that a few ceptors with an E-link and if it doesn't then the losing side deserves to lose. If you flood a region with interceptors and it causes lots of fights, some of which escalate in larger fights then the mechanic works and if you flood a region and the occupants don't defend and lose space the mechanic works. Either way I don't see how one group can keep up a sustained offensive of system trolling without suffering burnout or without causing larger fights. Either way there will be a winner and loser and both will be determined more by activity and less by inactivity.
There are so many people here that are like this, Goonswarm gone burn out because of this mechanice because they can't keep up the pressure. I bet few of you have been on the reseving end of what Goons can do to a single corp or how much time they can put down to RF towers and remote systems.
Goons have the biggest propeganda machine in this game, no other alliance can spewe out so much news about their own doing as them. In the short fountain war that lasted 2 weeks, right after Pheobe goons travled over 60 jumps several times back and forth to defend their systsmes from N3 and not enought with that they had own groupes that spent days behind enemy line RF systems fare away from the front. If you think your little 10 man operation to get some uesless space that no one us is gone tier our goons and not make them griefe you even more you are wronge. And this is just why we trying to fight this FW 2.0 systems Fozzie have made, is because of the amount of griefe that this glitchy game mechanics make avaible for goon to use. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
715
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:36:37 -
[2871] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote: Then they should **** or get off the pot. I don't care who it is. Defend it or lose it.
Not everyone has the timezone coverage to defend 16 hours a day. So no, I disagree with you to a certain extent. Defend it or lose it, yes. But don't make it unnecessarily difficult to defend, based on arbitrary penalties grounded in arbitrary limits.
baltec1 wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:
I do not agree with removing the sov laser from inties.
Then reduce the range on the t2 laser so we cant make the trollcepter.
The lock range of a ceptor will ensure you cannot make a trollceptor. They have difficulty reaching past 150, a range at which Eagles can hit without much issue. And we all know how well railguns track.
Trollceptors will not cost me sleep.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
273
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:41:13 -
[2872] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The whole point of the trollcepter is to avoid fights. So why the hell are a highsec pvp group gonna come into nullsec to avoid fights |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
273
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:45:09 -
[2873] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Goons have the biggest propeganda machine in this game. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15407
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:53:31 -
[2874] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:baltec1 wrote:The whole point of the trollcepter is to avoid fights. So why the hell are a highsec pvp group gonna come into nullsec to avoid fights
Same reason we would use them, to ruin someone else's game.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:54:45 -
[2875] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Tamdra Beebort wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There isnt anything extreme about it.
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? It is the opposite of blue balling, seems like after the first week or so of E-linking a structure to just be chased off to another would drive burn-out up. GSF is great at organizing but individuals are already complaining about having to be vigilant just to keep their space. How long will it last? Is GSF capable of continuing a "burn Null" campaign for more than a month or so. I am trying to look at this objectively because I want the game to fun and interesting to everyone. We shouldn't get tunnel vision on one specific hull or setup to the point that it blinds us from the point of the changes, fun. We want fun fights and hell camping a station for a week may be fun to one side and not the other but with these changes the fight has to continue in different parts of space and that will probably require more that a few ceptors with an E-link and if it doesn't then the losing side deserves to lose. If you flood a region with interceptors and it causes lots of fights, some of which escalate in larger fights then the mechanic works and if you flood a region and the occupants don't defend and lose space the mechanic works. Either way I don't see how one group can keep up a sustained offensive of system trolling without suffering burnout or without causing larger fights. Either way there will be a winner and loser and both will be determined more by activity and less by inactivity. There are so many people here that are like this, Goonswarm gone burn out because of this mechanice because they can't keep up the pressure. I bet few of you have been on the reseving end of what Goons can do to a single corp or how much time they can put down to RF towers and remote systems. Goons have the biggest propeganda machine in this game, no other alliance can spewe out so much news about their own doing as them. In the short fountain war that lasted 2 weeks, right after Pheobe goons travled over 60 jumps several times back and forth to defend their systsmes from N3 and not enought with that they had own groupes that spent days behind enemy line RF systems fare away from the front. If you think your little 10 man operation to get some uesless space that no one us is gone tier out goons and not make them griefe you even more you are wronge. And this is just why we trying to fight this FW 2.0 systems Fozzie have made, is because of the amount of griefe that this glitchy game mechanics make avaible for goon to use.
Never had a problem with goons or their methods, in fact I am a fan of how they operate. My point is that with the new mechanics it will not be as easy for them to defend what they have like they can now. I totally think they can do whatever they want to do but only for a few months. Not many players will want to play if they can only warp to a point and warp away, not saying it can't or won't be done. I'm just saying that it won't happen for extended periods of time. Goons like to blueball not get blueballed and they like to win. This type of game play won't allow them to win unless they stay to fight and these types of fights won't allow large blobs to form as easily and won't cater as easily to blueballing. Those are two of the main tactics for Goons.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:57:26 -
[2876] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:
Never had a problem with goons or their methods, in fact I am a fan of how they operate. My point is that with the new mechanics it will not be as easy for them to defend what they have like they can now. I totally think they can do whatever they want to do but only for a few months. Not many players will want to play if they can only warp to a point and warp away, not saying it can't or won't be done. I'm just saying that it won't happen for extended periods of time. Goons like to blueball not get blueballed and they like to win. This type of game play won't allow them to win unless they stay to fight and these types of fights won't allow large blobs to form as easily and won't cater as easily to blueballing. Those are two of the main tactics for Goons.
So you defending this FW 2.0 system because it will chase all the people running null sec at this moment out of the game, bravo.
Have fun orbirting Command Nods <.< |
DragonZer0
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:02:04 -
[2877] - Quote
http://evenews24.com/2015/03/05/tar-palantirs-take-on-the-proposed-sovereignty-changes/
This is something CCP as well as everyone needs to look at.
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:02:09 -
[2878] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Not everyone has the timezone coverage to defend 16 hours a day. So no, I disagree with you to a certain extent. Defend it or lose it, yes. But don't make it unnecessarily difficult to defend, based on arbitrary penalties grounded in arbitrary limits.
I agree 100%. The prime time to player ratio should be very conservative and it shouldn't put arbitrary penalties on groups, it should promote emergent play and by lengthening prime time it adds player error and organization to the equation. It would force larger groups to depend on more people for defense but allow smaller group to rely on fewer players. I don't have a number in mind but it shouldn't be so long the group is always open to attack but it shouldn't be so short that the largest groups can game the system.
Player count may not be the best metric to use. I don't know what what number would be best but I do think that the PT (prime time) should fluctuate with some type of metric tied to the group.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
681
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:05:43 -
[2879] - Quote
Reasonable people: "If you want people to take sov, you need to make sov worth taking." Everyone else: "Well actually..."
It's like arguing with tumblr.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:07:44 -
[2880] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
Never had a problem with goons or their methods, in fact I am a fan of how they operate. My point is that with the new mechanics it will not be as easy for them to defend what they have like they can now. I totally think they can do whatever they want to do but only for a few months. Not many players will want to play if they can only warp to a point and warp away, not saying it can't or won't be done. I'm just saying that it won't happen for extended periods of time. Goons like to blueball not get blueballed and they like to win. This type of game play won't allow them to win unless they stay to fight and these types of fights won't allow large blobs to form as easily and won't cater as easily to blueballing. Those are two of the main tactics for Goons.
So you defending this FW 2.0 system because it will chase all the people running null sec at this moment out of the game, bravo. Have fun orbirting Command Nods <.<
I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up, every change dredges up these same types of arguments. Some are valid and some are not and I want what is best for the game not a group. Change will always hurt or help some group and discussion is the best way to work out kinks.
Also, maybe the people running null sec at the moment need to chased out of null sec or out of their way of thinking because look at where we are at.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:10:13 -
[2881] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Reasonable people: "If you want people to take sov, you need to make sov worth taking." Everyone else: "Well actually..."
It's like arguing with tumblr. I thought you knew that the average person that lives in highsec and lowsec has an IQ lower than tumblers. |
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
73
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:10:23 -
[2882] - Quote
Perkin Warbeck wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Perkin Warbeck wrote:Okay posting in the whine thread when I promised myself I wouldn't.
My two main issues are:
1. Capturing and defending sovereignty looks and feels similar to the FW model. It's wrong on so many levels. After experiencing the rate at which systems can be flipped and spending the best part of a year chasing stabbed frigates out of FW plexes in Sahtogas, I can testify that it is the most God awful, soul crushing gameplay you can imagine. There is a reason FW is best experienced when you don't actually live in the war zone and a reason why so many established corps have left.
2. The four hour window. I get the reasons for it but it kind of leaves the Aussies up the billabong without a didgeridoo. 1. The frigates can't just warp away in the sov situation, they have to finish their cycle first. Also, there's no cap on the size of the ships brought, so I'm not forced into frigates in many situations. 2. I can't argue with this because analogy is too amusing. My issue isn't actually with whether a frigate, cruiser, small gang or whatever captures a system it's actually that CCP are trying to introduce a concept of 'perma war'. That your sov can be quickly attacked during a certain period every single day. Now perma war is great for the aggressor but it's terrible for the defender. After a while it becomes a grind and burn out and boredom set in. In theory it sounds fun but in reality it's awful. The defender actually needs some stability to develop and maintain growth in an area. To me it appears that CCP has only developed one side of the equation. On the one hand it will be easier to take sovereignty. But what then? How does a small alliance/corp keep it unless they log on every single day and play capture the flag every single damn day.
This needs to be shouted right the way to ccp hq. I still doubt they would get it.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
682
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:11:08 -
[2883] - Quote
HarlyQ wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Reasonable people: "If you want people to take sov, you need to make sov worth taking." Everyone else: "Well actually..."
It's like arguing with tumblr. I thought you knew that the average person that lives in highsec and lowsec has an IQ lower than tumblers. You have a very high opinion of tumblrites.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6558
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:11:35 -
[2884] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Tamdra Beebort wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There isnt anything extreme about it.
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? It is the opposite of blue balling, seems like after the first week or so of E-linking a structure to just be chased off to another would drive burn-out up. GSF is great at organizing but individuals are already complaining about having to be vigilant just to keep their space. How long will it last? Is GSF capable of continuing a "burn Null" campaign for more than a month or so. I am trying to look at this objectively because I want the game to fun and interesting to everyone. We shouldn't get tunnel vision on one specific hull or setup to the point that it blinds us from the point of the changes, fun. We want fun fights and hell camping a station for a week may be fun to one side and not the other but with these changes the fight has to continue in different parts of space and that will probably require more that a few ceptors with an E-link and if it doesn't then the losing side deserves to lose. If you flood a region with interceptors and it causes lots of fights, some of which escalate in larger fights then the mechanic works and if you flood a region and the occupants don't defend and lose space the mechanic works. Either way I don't see how one group can keep up a sustained offensive of system trolling without suffering burnout or without causing larger fights. Either way there will be a winner and loser and both will be determined more by activity and less by inactivity. There are so many people here that are like this, Goonswarm gone burn out because of this mechanice because they can't keep up the pressure. I bet few of you have been on the reseving end of what Goons can do to a single corp or how much time they can put down to RF towers and remote systems. Goons have the biggest propeganda machine in this game, no other alliance can spewe out so much news about their own doing as them. In the short fountain war that lasted 2 weeks, right after Pheobe goons travled over 60 jumps several times back and forth to defend their systsmes from N3 and not enought with that they had own groupes that spent days behind enemy line RF systems fare away from the front. If you think your little 10 man operation to get some uesless space that no one us is gone tier out goons and not make them griefe you even more you are wronge. And this is just why we trying to fight this FW 2.0 systems Fozzie have made, is because of the amount of griefe that this glitchy game mechanics make avaible for goon to use. Hah, is ncdot even allowed to express such worries about what ~the goons~ will do?
Won't it make you look bad...
But also, don't forget it doesn't mean that anyone wins. Imagine if there was a button in jita and you only had to shoot it to drop all sov. There wouldn't be any sov holders at all.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:15:19 -
[2885] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:
I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up, every change dredges up these same types of arguments. Some are valid and some are not and I want what is best for the game not a group. Change will always hurt or help some group and discussion is the best way to work out kinks.
Also, maybe the people running null sec at the moment need to chased out of null sec or out of their way of thinking because look at where we are at.
Making null sec into a part time job is not what's best for the game. But guess the mighty high sec dwellers always know best and they are defentily gone defend their space that day they get it without no resistance because no one wants it. Only 10% of null sec systems are worth living in I say if you guys want to live in the rest 90% I wont stop you guys. FInaly maybe you will see how useless null realy is and why we all got High sec alts doing our ISK making. BUt if this system get implemented just know it's gone be years at least until they will change it again. |
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:17:28 -
[2886] - Quote
I think they should implement this in FW to see how it goes I mean they need to test it someplace right and this is just another way of doing things I say we test it in lowsec and see how it goes ;) |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:18:21 -
[2887] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote: Hah, is ncdot even allowed to express such worries about what ~the goons~ will do?
Won't it make you look bad...
But also, don't forget it doesn't mean that anyone wins. Imagine if there was a button in jita and you only had to shoot it to drop all sov. There wouldn't be any sov holders at all.
I just think goons are gone be the one more suited for the new system, NCdot is more about the fights than constant griefing.
Thou letting someone win by default seems like boring game play. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:18:54 -
[2888] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Same reason we would use them, to ruin someone else's game. Why the hell would you ruin someone else's game at the expense of your own game? Well, goons would do it to prove a point. Which is like proving that meat grinders are dangerous and should require operation license by shoving your hand into one. But why would RvB take part in this idiocy if they don't get their fun from it? |
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:20:42 -
[2889] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Reasonable people: "If you want people to take sov, you need to make sov worth taking." Everyone else: "Well actually..."
It's like arguing with tumblr. So true. Null needs a few hundred carrots right about now.
The only issue when null gets those carrots, if null becomes worth it to take, what happens when either your group, or NC.'s group, decide that because the improved space is wonderful, and worth to take and use, they want even more of the improved space? Doesn't it become a point where the big guys only stand to get bigger either way? If mechanically you can't break the coalitions because of the organizational prowess of the blocs, which I totally agree is something to marvel at, and you can't break the coalitions through the metagame, how DO you make it in the players' best interests to break up the coalitions and regain a null where smaller groups can gain access? |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:21:26 -
[2890] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up, every change dredges up these same types of arguments. Some are valid and some are not and I want what is best for the game not a group. Change will always hurt or help some group and discussion is the best way to work out kinks.
Also, maybe the people running null sec at the moment need to chased out of null sec or out of their way of thinking because look at where we are at.
Making null sec into a part time job is not what's best for the game. But guess the mighty high sec dwellers always know best and they are defentily gone defend their space that day they get it without no resistance because no one wants it. Only 10% of null sec systems are worth living in I say if you guys want to live in the rest 90% I wont stop you guys. FInaly maybe you will see how useless null realy is and why we all got High sec alts doing our ISK making. BUt if this system get implemented just know it's gone be years at least until they will change it again.
Like I said before, phase three will probably be an upgrade system for sov holders. I know that most space is useless, unprofitable and whatever else you want to call it and without incentives to live in that space there is no reason to hold it. Even my inferior high sec mind can grasp that, that's why I left null over a year ago. It is not interesting to me and if and when it becomes interesting again I will move back. We shouldn't let bitter vet syndrome set in before things even change.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:27:48 -
[2891] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:
Like I said before, phase three will probably be an upgrade system for sov holders. I know that most space is useless, unprofitable and whatever else you want to call it and without incentives to live in that space there is no reason to hold it. Even my inferior high sec mind can grasp that, that's why I left null over a year ago. It is not interesting to me and if and when it becomes interesting again I will move back. We shouldn't let bitter vet syndrome set in before things even change.
I hate this arugment the most, well you don't know what Phase 3 is so just sit down and wait for what CCP is gone do because that is probably gone fixe everything. It's just how I we been sitting doing nothing waiting for a proper null sec warfare system just to get a Faction Warfare copy instead. But if we wait another 6 months it's gone be rewarding guys. I rather have the current system than some cheap copy, just find a way to lower the amount of timers.
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
755
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:29:29 -
[2892] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Face it, interceptors fitting this sov laser is a terrible idea and needs to be purged. Nope, it's totally fine, and can be completely countered by AFK alts in Drakes. There's no problem at all here to solve, the solution's already there.
Quit whining about Interceptors, HTFU, and prepare to actually have to defend your sov.
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12009
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:31:40 -
[2893] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:We shouldn't let bitter vet syndrome set in before things even change.
No, in fact people should make sure to not let up on lighting a fire under their asses so the game doesn't get half baked, unfocused changes piecemeal.
That's a big damned problem with EVE, throughout it's history. Iterative changes are fine now and then, but not for something like this.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:32:58 -
[2894] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Tamdra Beebort wrote: how long can you pilots keep it up? I have absolutely no doubt that if an organization as large as Goonswarm can reliably entertain it's members by RF'ing the rest of nullsec every few days, then they absolutely will just because they can.
Sweet black baby jesus someone outside the CFC who comes close to understanding us.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6558
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:33:33 -
[2895] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Reasonable people: "If you want people to take sov, you need to make sov worth taking." Everyone else: "Well actually..."
It's like arguing with tumblr. So true. Null needs a few hundred carrots right about now. The only issue when null gets those carrots, if null becomes worth it to take, what happens when either your group, or NC.'s group, decide that because the improved space is wonderful, and worth to take and use, they want even more of the improved space? Doesn't it become a point where the big guys only stand to get bigger either way? If mechanically you can't break the coalitions because of the organizational prowess of the blocs, which I totally agree is something to marvel at, and you can't break the coalitions through the metagame, how DO you make it in the players' best interests to break up the coalitions and regain a null where smaller groups can gain access? Easy. Make it so the place is worhless.
There are some groups (you know who) that live in space the "big guys" don't care for, and are farmed for killmails etc.
If all space is terrible, then it will be filled with a vibrant patchwork of people who will be farmed by the "big guys" (now staging from lowsec or wherever) and you can claim victory.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6558
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:35:19 -
[2896] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:Tamdra Beebort wrote: how long can you pilots keep it up? I have absolutely no doubt that if an organization as large as Goonswarm can reliably entertain it's members by RF'ing the rest of nullsec every few days, then they absolutely will just because they can. Sweet black baby jesus someone outside the CFC who comes close to understanding us. What you really mean is it's some goon forumspy alt trying to frighten people.
Stay the course, sov lasers will end the 0.0 nightmare
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
684
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:35:59 -
[2897] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:baltec1 wrote:Face it, interceptors fitting this sov laser is a terrible idea and needs to be purged. Nope, it's totally fine, and can be completely countered by AFK alts in Drakes. There's no problem at all here to solve, the solution's already there. Quit whining about Interceptors, HTFU, and prepare to actually have to defend your sov. Why should we defend our sov? Why should anyone defend their sov? Jesus ******* christ on a pogo stick, this is the biggest problem with the proposal. At least sovereignty mining lasers, trollceptors, primetimes and whatnot can be discussed and fixed but CCP has been completely clueless about incentives for month, so that's the issue that I'm trying to focus on here.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6558
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:39:34 -
[2898] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Veskrashen wrote:baltec1 wrote:Face it, interceptors fitting this sov laser is a terrible idea and needs to be purged. Nope, it's totally fine, and can be completely countered by AFK alts in Drakes. There's no problem at all here to solve, the solution's already there. Quit whining about Interceptors, HTFU, and prepare to actually have to defend your sov. Why should we defend our sov? Why should anyone defend their sov? Jesus ******* christ on a pogo stick, this is the biggest problem with the proposal. At least sovereignty mining lasers, trollceptors, primetimes and whatnot can be discussed and fixed but CCP has been completely clueless about incentives for years, so that's the issue that I'm trying to focus on here. Goons in nullsec will end once it isn't worth it for goons to be in nullsec
It's amazing and irrefutable.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15411
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:46:20 -
[2899] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:baltec1 wrote:Same reason we would use them, to ruin someone else's game. Why the hell would you ruin someone else's game at the expense of your own game? Well, goons would do it to prove a point. Which is like proving that meat grinders are dangerous and should require operation license by shoving your hand into one. But why would RvB take part in this idiocy if they don't get their fun from it?
They would find it fun.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:50:19 -
[2900] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
Like I said before, phase three will probably be an upgrade system for sov holders. I know that most space is useless, unprofitable and whatever else you want to call it and without incentives to live in that space there is no reason to hold it. Even my inferior high sec mind can grasp that, that's why I left null over a year ago. It is not interesting to me and if and when it becomes interesting again I will move back. We shouldn't let bitter vet syndrome set in before things even change.
I hate this arugment the most, well you don't know what Phase 3 is so just sit down and wait for what CCP is gone do because that is probably gone fixe everything. It's just how I we been sitting doing nothing waiting for a proper null sec warfare system just to get a Faction Warfare copy instead. But if we wait another 6 months it's gone be rewarding guys. I rather have the current system than some cheap copy, just find a way to lower the amount of timers.
We wanted change, no we don't because it is too change. We don't want to shoot structures, well yes we do because there isn't really any other way to do it. We want occupancy based sov even though we can't define it in any meaningful way. Null is stagnate and it needs to be changed as long as it stays the same. We don't want timers unless it changes how sov works then timers are okay. CCP hasn't changed anything in a good way ever so they need to change sov but don't do it if changes how sov works. Make it so that smaller groups can take sov but don't make it where smaller groups can harass larger groups. We want players to be active unless it interrupts our playtime.
No matter what they do they are going to be wrong so why even try? We can't have both sides. There is no other way to capture sov besides shooting things with stuff and waiting on a timer because this is a video game and that is how they work.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6559
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:54:00 -
[2901] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Torgeir Hekard wrote:baltec1 wrote:Same reason we would use them, to ruin someone else's game. Why the hell would you ruin someone else's game at the expense of your own game? Well, goons would do it to prove a point. Which is like proving that meat grinders are dangerous and should require operation license by shoving your hand into one. But why would RvB take part in this idiocy if they don't get their fun from it? They would find it fun. Never underestimate the ability of our leaders to convince us that something is fun, exciting "content".
They built a massive blue donut out of it, don't joke around about things like that.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
760
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:55:56 -
[2902] - Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't CCP want to increase capital and supercapital losses? How do inty fleets do that, pray tell? |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
116
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:56:55 -
[2903] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:We shouldn't let bitter vet syndrome set in before things even change. No, in fact people should make sure to not let up on lighting a fire under their asses so the game doesn't get half baked, unfocused changes piecemeal. That's a big damned problem with EVE, throughout it's history. Iterative changes are fine now and then, but not for something like this.
You are right we should hold them to the fire and do our best to make it the best we can through feedback and discussion.
I was referring to his comment about making sov a partime job and how only 10% of space is worth anything. It should be a partime job or you shouldn't be there. Making all space worth something is what needs to happen and phase two doesn't address that, it addresses mechanics of taking and holding sov.
Kah'Les wrote:Making null sec into a part time job is not what's best for the game. But guess the mighty high sec dwellers always know best and they are defentily gone defend their space that day they get it without no resistance because no one wants it. Only 10% of null sec systems are worth living in I say if you guys want to live in the rest 90% I wont stop you guys. FInaly maybe you will see how useless null realy is and why we all got High sec alts doing our ISK making. BUt if this system get implemented just know it's gone be years at least until they will change it again.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:57:33 -
[2904] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:baltec1 wrote:Same reason we would use them, to ruin someone else's game. Why the hell would you ruin someone else's game at the expense of your own game? Well, goons would do it to prove a point. Which is like proving that meat grinders are dangerous and should require operation license by shoving your hand into one. But why would RvB take part in this idiocy if they don't get their fun from it?
I think you underestimate how far I will go to ruin someone else's day.
Also, because I am like a lot of goons, mid spectrum autistic, I can and will trollceptor some losers hovel system on one side of New Eden whilst valiantly defending the homeland with another.
Why?
Because CCP have spread petrol all over new eden and handed me the match and I want to watch it burn (from my fortress in Deklein).
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:59:52 -
[2905] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:Tamdra Beebort wrote: how long can you pilots keep it up? I have absolutely no doubt that if an organization as large as Goonswarm can reliably entertain it's members by RF'ing the rest of nullsec every few days, then they absolutely will just because they can. Sweet black baby jesus someone outside the CFC who comes close to understanding us. What you really mean is it's some goon forumspy alt trying to frighten people. Stay the course, sov lasers will end the 0.0 nightmare
We have spais?
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6560
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:02:40 -
[2906] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't CCP want to increase capital and supercapital losses? How do inty fleets do that, pray tell? It's fine if no one "needs" capital and supercapitals anymore.
Just lots and lots of players who will do something endlessly because they're brainwashed or something... er
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
687
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:05:16 -
[2907] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up Defending a change because "it will shake things up" is just about the most myopic justification that I can imagine. So what if it does? There's always some increase in activity after a major change in game mechanics, but this is always transient. You need to judge changes based upon the routines that players will settle into with the new mechanics, not the actions they'll take in adjusting to them.
This is the same mistake that CCP is making regarding the Phoebe travel changes. They've pointed to the flurry of activity after the patch and considered this an indication that their design was a success.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6560
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:06:30 -
[2908] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up Defending a change because "it will shake things up" is just about the most myopic justification that I can imagine. So what if it does? There's always some increase in activity after a major change in game mechanics, but this is always transient. You need to judge changes based upon the routines that players will settle into with the new mechanics, not the actions they'll take in adjusting to them. This is the same mistake that CCP is making regarding the Phoebe travel changes. They've pointed to the flurry of activity after the patch and considered this an indication that their design was a success. I'm really fatigued. It was a success.
Except that now I will go to sleep and have a 0.0dream. That is a failure.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12015
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:07:47 -
[2909] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote: It should be a partime job or you shouldn't be there.
You do realize this is a videogame, right?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Specia1 K
State War Academy Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:09:07 -
[2910] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:baltec1 wrote:Same reason we would use them, to ruin someone else's game. Why the hell would you ruin someone else's game at the expense of your own game? Well, goons would do it to prove a point. Which is like proving that meat grinders are dangerous and should require operation license by shoving your hand into one. But why would RvB take part in this idiocy if they don't get their fun from it?
lol, I just spewed my coffee :)
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6560
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:12:46 -
[2911] - Quote
Specia1 K wrote:Torgeir Hekard wrote:baltec1 wrote:Same reason we would use them, to ruin someone else's game. Why the hell would you ruin someone else's game at the expense of your own game? Well, goons would do it to prove a point. Which is like proving that meat grinders are dangerous and should require operation license by shoving your hand into one. But why would RvB take part in this idiocy if they don't get their fun from it? lol, I just spewed my coffee :) Wait, so you're saying we'd end everyone else's sov, but no one would end our 0.0 dream?
That doesn't sound right. I'm sure massadeath of moa said they were going to end us
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Santiaqo
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:13:26 -
[2912] - Quote
So many posts.
As to the Trollceptor point, CCP wants people to "Control Grid" to be able to Entosis sov objectives.
Trollceptor is not "Controlling Grid" so Trollceptor is "Not Intended Design" (CCP should see this... Right?)
Make Entosis fitting require enough Power so you could fit it only on Battlecruiser hulls and larger (or put a direct requirement on the module). They are slow. They are sluggish. They can't evade camps and bubbles. They need grid control to be there to Entosis.
At the same time Battlecruisers are cheap enough entry barrier so that small corps can afford it. And much easier for real defenders to defend against thus provoking real fights (which is good amirite?)
As for attackers risking cheap expendable fleets against defenders billion isk worth of infrastructure - perfectly valid point, it needs to be addressed somehow. Making Entosis module REALLY expensive seems like the obvious solution, but it would place entry barrier too high, so probably not a good one.
Nulls have to be much more profitable than they are now to make it worth the hassle - very solid point. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
349
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:14:25 -
[2913] - Quote
Vyl Vit wrote:Isn't it so like this current playerbase to point the finger at the mod and completely overlook the greater dynamics this new SOV change will bring? Why is this? The new mod itself is little more than a pointing finger. The discussion is all about sawing off the pointing finger, or keeping the pointing finger from being sawed off, or why can just anybody point the finger? None of it is a lively discussion about how this change will affect two things that have plagued the majority of New Eden for years - blue blobs and blue donuts. Under Band of Brothers, a huge section of the map was in stasis forcing players onto a small section of null sec space. Under the Blue Donut, all that happens in null sec is people rent from other people.
The majority of items in the game just aren't being used, and in both instances of "natural" game play, the "natural" result seems to be (once again) freezing up the majority of New Eden. This certainly isn't gameplay. DIddling around with one or two elements without pulling the entirety of EVE's features into play isn't gameplay either. It's diddling around. At last with this new approach there's a significant potential to pull EVE into the game of EVE. People who are focusing on the mod, and trying to find ways to circumvent things like downtime visa vis prime time will miss the boat entirely. People, and CEOs/Alliance leaderships that focus on all the aspects of the game - the development of systems, the sovereignty panel, the many and varied skills of the group now disparagingly called "carebears" WILL WIN.
So, yes. Do continue your bogged down in minutia discussion of the module, and how someone might circumvent the intended with the clever. However, understand in so doing you're demonstrating how little you've bothered to learn about the wider game of EVE. It's like obsessing on the queen's hair-do and not developing a strong pawn game. And, as anyone who knows chess will tell you, the game is won with the pawn game, not the queen.
I look forward to seeing the hindparts of The Blue Donut as it disappears over the horizon looking for another game to smother. I'm even looking forward to seeing the departure of people whose imaginations and true strategic abilities only amount to that. I'm going to enjoy ganking becoming an annoyance (as it rightly is) and emergent gameplay suddenly becoming playing EVE again!
I appreciate everyone's effort to support our game through this forum. I only suggest those who are fixated on a module try expanding your understanding of this game we play by taking a look at the map, and the other panels that seem to never get used. They are going to be the central focus of the game now - as it should be.
"The battle is won before it is fought." -Sun Tzu's way of saying "know what you're doing."- Just 1 question. How do you see this breaking coalitions? From what i can see this will only encourage the blue + blue to expand further. Nothing says "safe sov" like being completely surrounded by blues. The bloks know this and will only build on it. Whether or not they use it to take more sov (I doubt it) or whether they just screw everyone not blue into submission is yet to be seen but the one thing you can be sure of - If there is a way to exploit this new module, you seem to think so unimportant, the bloks will find it and use it.
The module is such an issue because if it is not introduced correctly it will simply be OP and completely negate any efforts by CCP and players to bring content into our nice static nulsec homes. In the right (or wrong) circumstances, a small group who has taken sov and sunk everything they have into it, could lose it due to overtime or a school exam or even a thunderstorm and 1 enemy ceptor with an Entosis module.
In response to your comparison to chess. The bloks have far more pawns ready and willing to abuse a bad mechanic than the rest of eve combined. So yes, you are right, the pawn game will win.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:16:14 -
[2914] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote: Why should we defend our sov? Why should anyone defend their sov?
Dunno, that's a mystery to me too. Why are you doing it right now? The proposed nullsec revamp does not change the value of sov (well, actually it does in a roundabout kind of way - by decreasing the value of supers). Which means that current sov holding entities would give the same answer to this question now as they would after the sov revamp. So you tell me, why do you guys stick to your sov?
My hunch is, sov is valuable for 2 reasons - super construction and ISK printing. There is only one way to build supers, and that is to hold sov, but this is subject to change as supers should probably lose their value as the Final Solution to your sov problems.
There are 3 major ways to print isk - incursions, blue loot and null bounties. All the other activities have their reward in loot, lp, whatever, anything but ISK. Incursions are quite limited. Only about 500 people on average can run incursions at any given point in time with an average ISK/h reward (pure ISK, not counting LP) somewhere about equal to that of a nullsec carrier ratter. And carrier ratting scales better. Blue loot took a nerfbat to the head earlier to the point that some major entities just left WH.
And the thing is, isk is just as good a commodity as anything else. And now we are undersupplied with isk. Well, relative to what was before anyway. This is evidenced by many non-isk commodities heavily losing their isk value. Pirate battleships are going for less than 500m a hull now. The most profitable hisec LP stores (those that don't have lvl5 agents, like sisters) caved in. Exploration loot took a deep dive (dedspace mod prices folded at least in two in last 1,5-2 years).
So you now have to slaughter about 2 times less poor rat crewmembers to afford shinies than you had to 2 years before, and an average hisec dedspace runner has to work 2 times more to earn the same isk (and that's not counting in the vastly increased competition after odyssey).
So yes, you may leave sov all you want, but that will further increase the isk value (or decrease prices if you will. You can see it as an increase in competition in other economic activities driving their value down) making anom ratting more economically attractive. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
760
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:16:30 -
[2915] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't CCP want to increase capital and supercapital losses? How do inty fleets do that, pray tell? It's fine if no one "needs" capital and supercapitals anymore. Just lots and lots of players who will do something endlessly because they're brainwashed or something... er Of course, how could I forget? |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
301
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:34:38 -
[2916] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Kah'Les wrote:And if people need to use 28 hours a week to stop scrubs from taking systems, it sounds balanced how? The sov system we have now even thou it's grindy at least you only needed to spend 1 hour to stop someone from taking one system compared to making eve a second job with the new system. Kah'Les wrote:It's a place of comidment and time Make your mind up son. You honestly don't know how much time in null sec goes down to fueling POS, JB and supplying yourself with weekly PvP ships. If your prime time is used hunting people all the time you get less time to logistics and CTAs to fight the bigger fights, personal roams or ISK making. Instead you sit all day in your own system activating Entosis Link all day. There are other things than fighting that takes time in this game.
Presumably that is done during the remaining 20h (-1 for DT if its not in prime window) of the day when your regions are not vulnerable.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6560
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:35:47 -
[2917] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:So yes, you may leave sov all you want, but that will further increase the isk value (or decrease prices if you will. You can see it as an increase in competition in other economic activities driving their value down) making anom ratting more economically attractive. Without sov, anom ratting also becomes a lot less scaleable etc, but you already know how ihubs work
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6560
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:40:14 -
[2918] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Kah'Les wrote:And if people need to use 28 hours a week to stop scrubs from taking systems, it sounds balanced how? The sov system we have now even thou it's grindy at least you only needed to spend 1 hour to stop someone from taking one system compared to making eve a second job with the new system. Kah'Les wrote:It's a place of comidment and time Make your mind up son. You honestly don't know how much time in null sec goes down to fueling POS, JB and supplying yourself with weekly PvP ships. If your prime time is used hunting people all the time you get less time to logistics and CTAs to fight the bigger fights, personal roams or ISK making. Instead you sit all day in your own system activating Entosis Link all day. There are other things than fighting that takes time in this game. Presumably that is done during the remaining 20h (-1 for DT if its not in prime window) of the day when your regions are not vulnerable. Yeah! You can go roam in something nice and fast and capable of taking sov
Like interceptors!!
Or if you just live a sov-less life, it is even better!!
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Pok Nibin
Filial Pariahs
579
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:55:18 -
[2919] - Quote
That perpetual motion can't be done doesn't make it a problem that needs to be solved. Having people who think they can think turn it into a problem doesn't then make it a problem. It may just be evidence that those people who think they can think can't actually think.
There is no cure for cancer, as cancer is a condition similar to poisoning. Once that's done, you either survive or succumb. The solution for cancer is to not get it. Not dumping poison into our environment by the metric ton per minute might be a solution there. We don't know 'cause we've never TRIED.
Invading Russia in winter is doable. But, who'd bother if you can be in the Bahamas in winter?
Relatives abound. Much of this is a misapprehension of the nature of human intelligence. Just because we think something doesn't give that thought validity. Unfortunately, our brains are not infallible computers, though many people think they are these days...oops there's that word again.
I think, therefore I drink.
The salient point made here so far was these huge alliances will HAVE to reevaluate what is reasonable to hold. That will be determined by what can be held. The fact they now have to consider this, then do it, means the change will be far reaching with interesting results we can speculate about till the sun goes down, but we won't know until we see.
Another factor being left out is, we're assuming people will try. I won't even assume that.
Dont fight it; Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs; You know you want to.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6560
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:56:52 -
[2920] - Quote
Pok Nibin wrote:I think, therefore I drink.
The salient point made here so far was these huge alliances will HAVE to reevaluate what is reasonable to hold. That will be determined by what can be held. The fact they now have to consider this, then do it, means the change will be far reaching with interesting results we can speculate about till the sun goes down, but we won't know until we see. Yeah, I was really fatigued and shook up nullsec
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
636
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:00:17 -
[2921] - Quote
People complaining about the ceptors do so under the impression that ceptors would be impossible to catch while activating the sov laser. This is non sense. They can be and will be caught.
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:07:16 -
[2922] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Without sov, anom ratting also becomes a lot less scaleable etc, but you already know how ihubs work But if you leave sov, then it's up for grabs for anyone willing and able. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12015
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:16:38 -
[2923] - Quote
Pok Nibin wrote:That perpetual motion can't be done doesn't make it a problem that needs to be solved. Having people who think they can think turn it into a problem doesn't then make it a problem. It may just be evidence that those people who think they can think can't actually think.
What the **** are you talking about? It isn't something so philosophical, it's the second law of thermodynamics.
"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.
12017
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:48:00 -
[2924] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:[ Yes, but if you aren't willing to put in the work to hold the space then move to HS or LS. Null sec should be work just like WH should be work.
And, according to you, sitting on a structure all the time should be where that bar is set.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
23655
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:49:43 -
[2925] - Quote
I hate to bring up this weird little complaint, but SOV laser really reminds me of capture the flag. Nothing breaks immersion like capture the flag. The entosis laser bears no resemblance to any grand space warfare we read about in sci fi books, which is the prime reason a lot of us have come to play this game.
Rush to danger, wind up nowhere
Sabriz for CSM go go go
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
637
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:51:31 -
[2926] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:I hate to bring up this weird little complaint, but SOV laser really reminds me of capture the flag. Nothing breaks immersion like capture the flag. The entosis laser bears no resemblance to any grand space warfare we read about in sci fi books, which is the prime reason a lot of us have come to play this game.
Sure it does. It's a new module from the drifters blah blah blah.
You know what breaks my scifi experience? ****** TIDI and grinding afk structures. Aint nobody got time for that
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:55:05 -
[2927] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up Defending a change because "it will shake things up" is just about the most myopic justification that I can imagine. So what if it does? There's always some increase in activity after a major change in game mechanics, but this is always transient. You need to judge changes based upon the routines that players will settle into with the new mechanics, not the actions they'll take in adjusting to them. This is the same mistake that CCP is making regarding the Phoebe travel changes. They've pointed to the flurry of activity after the patch and considered this an indication that their design was a success.
What is the indication of success?
Pilots losing more ships? Players living in Null? Industrial jobs in Null?
By your definition there never will be a success because there will always be a ebb and flow based on the release cycle we have now. CCP's original stated goal was to create a system that takes players another 10 years to master. The new mechanic has is flaws but I don't think it is as bad as many - mostly GSF - make it out to be. This thread is no different than any other thread about changes except in length.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
SiKong Ma
House of Nim-Lhach Skeleton Crew.
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:55:49 -
[2928] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:I hate to bring up this weird little complaint, but SOV laser really reminds me of capture the flag. Nothing breaks immersion like capture the flag. The entosis laser bears no resemblance to any grand space warfare we read about in sci fi books, which is the prime reason a lot of us have come to play this game.
Support my idea and make it 8 cents worth:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5552759#post5552759
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2561
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:56:50 -
[2929] - Quote
Wow, I caught up.
OK, few points I have taken away so far.
1) People will use this to troll or aggravate other groups . . . like they don't right now?
2) Sov needs to have value. Agreed but if we gave it value before we changed how it changed hands you would be grinding structures again. I was under the impression most folks hated grinding structures.
3) Goons will ruin everything. How is that different from any other point in the past few years. The do because they like to.
4) Fozzie will be splitting some key points into separate threads. Great, so we can tick these down one at a time.
6) Mike hates OCD folks, anarchist
7) I was and am in favour of the overall ideas presented. I said that often and before I waded into this morass of a threadnaught. If you want other CSM's personal opinions, ask them. Maybe they will tell you the truth as well. Maybe.
8) I am amazed at some of the fits you guys been throwing about for a module not yet described except in vaguest terms but I really want you to focus on the key thing . . . no outside help for the entosis ship while in cycle. Vulnerable is the key.
9) I am amazed none of you realized that intel and cloaky camping will have a new purpose. Watching local to see if and when nobody is home during prime time. Or when the defense force tends to be lax.
10) All night shops are open 24 hours a day by rotating their staff. A large multi-timezone organization could do the same for the prime time to make things interesting for different parts of its membership.
11) If I were an Aussie alliance I would hire mercs to drag a late night prime time over to my slot so we could finish it off. Remember prime time is when the battle has to start, not end.
but what do I know? I am just a hisec carebear and hell yes I will be on a ganked roam with RvB when they take out ships to knock over undefended sovs.
Looking forward to the single out threads
oh and some stats for you, make of them what you will
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
350
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:59:31 -
[2930] - Quote
These few things have probably already been addressed but;
As the new sovereignty system relies heavily on occupation and use of the system, how or why would a group go and take sov in an area that cannot support its members? What happens to those systems that now can't support more than 10 or 12 players?
Why is sov being constellation based when one of the stated objectives is for small groups to be able to take sov? A small group may well be able to hold 2 or 3 adjoining systems but find it difficult to hold a constellation. Or is it intended the small groups band together (form yet another coalition) to hold a constellation? There is a huge difference in being able to defend 2 or 3 systems and defending a constellation of 6 or more.
Quote: Engaging with and disrupting enemy activities with small gangs should slowly erode their strategic defenses This part here has me wondering, is CCP aware they are further empowering cloaky campers, without introducing any way to deal with and remove them (other than sheer luck)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I like the concept being put forward, except for the part where a lone ship can RF structures (that is simply limiting possibility for conflict) and if it turns out a group can take only as much sov as they believe they can defend, instead of being forced to take a constellation to play a mini game (which really does not belong in sov war), it will be getting closer to enabling small groups to become sov holders. Sov wars should be about fights, not a mini game that can be won or lost by the fastest ship.
One other thing is defenses based on system indexes. You may have a stationed system but due to its security status it will never support more than a dozen members. This means for mining in particular, if you hold a system that has only 3 or 4 belts you will never be able to mine enough ore to upgrade the ihub, therefore your defensive index will suffer. So a desirable stationed system with few belts and less desirable anoms = more easily conquered due to low defensive index.
The reason I ask is; the more productive systems will be highly contested by large groups as they can support larger numbers of players, where the less productive systems will be left for smaller groups to conquer (maybe). At the same time it will be easier for the large groups to kick out the small group because they will never get their defensive indexes up high enough to be a deterrent and assist the defense.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:59:48 -
[2931] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:[ Yes, but if you aren't willing to put in the work to hold the space then move to HS or LS. Null sec should be work just like WH should be work.
And, according to you, sitting on a structure all the time should be where that bar is set.
What else is there? You don't want HP or timer grinds. We want small groups to be able to take sov, we want to encourage fights, we want fights spread out across a larger area to combat TiDi and we want people to undock and be active. How do we do all those things? This E-link thing is the closest thing we can get to that, it needs work but it seems to be the best solution to the problems we have now.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
23655
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:02:15 -
[2932] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:oh and some stats for you, make of them what you will
Apparently CODEdot is all worked up about SOV.
Edit: Figured it out
Rush to danger, wind up nowhere
Sabriz for CSM go go go
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:05:07 -
[2933] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:oh and some stats for you, make of them what you will Apparently CODEdot is all worked up about SOV.
Did this beat the JF thread?
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
689
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:07:12 -
[2934] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote: Why should we defend our sov? Why should anyone defend their sov?
Another question: Would anyone shed any tears if you dropped sov tomorrow? Not one. The problem isn't whether you want to keep sov or not. There is no 30,000-foot reason to give you any motivation to keep sov. The rest of us don't care, and CCP could care even less. The question is why would someone expend the effort to come take it from you? The motivation to take it would be the so-called activity that CCP is trying to tease out. The problem is, this motivation isn't there. Why would someone rob you of something with less value than WH or a Saturday afternoon in hisec? You basically just rephrased my question. We're both arguing for the same thing.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
23657
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:12:03 -
[2935] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote: You basically just rephrased my question. We're both arguing for the same thing.
Yes. I'm just saying that people will draw the wrong conclusions when looking at your Alliance tag and the way you've phrased it.
Your argument is good. I understood it.
Rush to danger, wind up nowhere
Sabriz for CSM go go go
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:12:34 -
[2936] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Wow, I caught up. OK, few points I have taken away so far. 1) People will use this to troll or aggravate other groups . . . like they don't right now? 2) Sov needs to have value. Agreed but if we gave it value before we changed how it changed hands you would be grinding structures again. I was under the impression most folks hated grinding structures. 3) Goons will ruin everything. How is that different from any other point in the past few years. The do because they like to. 4) Fozzie will be splitting some key points into separate threads. Great, so we can tick these down one at a time. 6) Mike hates OCD folks, anarchist 7) I was and am in favour of the overall ideas presented. I said that often and before I waded into this morass of a threadnaught. If you want other CSM's personal opinions, ask them. Maybe they will tell you the truth as well. Maybe. 8) I am amazed at some of the fits you guys been throwing about for a module not yet described except in vaguest terms but I really want you to focus on the key thing . . . no outside help for the entosis ship while in cycle. Vulnerable is the key. 9) I am amazed none of you realized that intel and cloaky camping will have a new purpose. Watching local to see if and when nobody is home during prime time. Or when the defense force tends to be lax. 10) All night shops are open 24 hours a day by rotating their staff. A large multi-timezone organization could do the same for the prime time to make things interesting for different parts of its membership. 11) If I were an Aussie alliance I would hire mercs to drag a late night prime time over to my slot so we could finish it off. Remember prime time is when the battle has to start, not end. but what do I know? I am just a hisec carebear and hell yes I will be on a ganked roam with RvB when they take out ships to knock over undefended sovs. Looking forward to the single out threads oh and some stats for you, make of them what you will m
Actually on point 3 we couldn't ruin everything before, there were limits imposed by timers and EHP. Now we can conceivably make every sov-null system outside of the homeland burn in the space of a month.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
301
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:17:40 -
[2937] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Ereilian wrote:Unused space is unused for a reason, it is bolloxs. The Anom nerf made most -0.5 space pointless to occupy [I will add a rider here, yes you can still mine]. If anything I am certain the superblobs would LOVE fresh meat to take these systems ... more Brave newbies to farm. The primary difference in this particular aspect of null is that people living in this space won't have to rent anymore. The cost of taking and holding sov in a system NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO LIVE IN will now be basically free. It only becomes expensive to defend sov if someone wants to actually evict you and LIVE THERE, not just if they are passing through burning everything in sight. Basically, WH life in null.
I have to point out that ihub set up for proper farming of the system takes 2 regular freighterfuls (ihub + lev 5 military) and ~2 bil. Ignoring the nonessential upgrades like mining, exploration and WH's. So for a small group just wanting to carve out a piece of the space for themselves it would be an issue if someone comes every few days and burns their infrastructure to the ground.
So there will be still some renters who will, most likely, be required to prevent troll-ceptors from creating timers and who are paying for a batphone right in the case of "serious" invasion.
In addition I expect to see a new kind of "renter" which would be just a bit twisted current "pet" - a groups competent enough could be offered by major coalitions a "rental spot" without isk payment in exchange of them policing the area around their home system in, lets say, 5j radius.
Individual renters would also try to do "politics" by arranging some kind of pact between neigbouring corporations to have few warm bodies 1-2j out who are able to repond in time for the call to arms to have enough numbers to dare to engage 1-3 interceptors.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12018
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:25:19 -
[2938] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote: What else is there?
Don't even try a false dichotomy.
There are more alternatives to sov warfare than grinding structures endlessly and having to babysit each and every structure forever.
The 2 minute cycle time is too short, can be done at too long of a distance, and if it's available to frigates it does not give the defender any ability to respond to a pre-reinforced attack short of sitting on that structure literally all the time.
That is not an acceptable solution.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
1500
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:27:06 -
[2939] - Quote
Literally Space Moses wrote:You made sov harder to hold (good) but didn't give any additional incentive to actually hold it (very bad),
Seriously, you keep giving nullsec the stick, when is the carrot going to come?
Yep, +1. Same thoughts here.
COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse
CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
637
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:30:09 -
[2940] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote: What else is there?
Don't even try a false dichotomy. There are more alternatives to sov warfare than grinding structures endlessly and having to babysit each and every structure forever. The 2 minute cycle time is too short, can be done at too long of a distance, and if it's available to frigates it does not give the defender any ability to respond to a pre-reinforced attack short of sitting on that structure literally all the time. That is not an acceptable solution.
At what distance would this be happening?
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
|
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
153
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:42:26 -
[2941] - Quote
Seriously. No halitosis from T2 or T3 hulls. Forcing attackers to use something (any size from frigate to titan) that has none of the advanced tech gimmicks like bubble immunity and/or warping cloaked would be breath of fresh air. Fitting exclusive to T1 hulls only.
Attackers would be welcome to bring Ishtars and Confessors and Maledictions etc to smash/disperse gatecamps en route and/or murder defenders at the structure while the dedicated HalitOrthruses or Cynabals or Atrons do their thing but the module would remain exclusive to T1 hulls (faction, pirate or vanilla). T1 of all sizes are quite capable hulls with tons of variety among them and it's not like they're toothless and can't fight off defenders with the rest of their gang while they keep the sovthing locked, they just don't have the troublesome hull bonuses that many T2 and T3 hulls have.
They'd do just fine for the purpose of lasering sovs for 2-5 minutes.
So why not? Why must T2 and T3 be allowed to fit the module? Will sov stagnate eternally if they cant? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12019
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:43:48 -
[2942] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote: Tell me which ship you have in your hanger that has a lock range of 250 that you envision will be doing these sort of deep territory sov sapping missions.
I didn't say that was my plan. My position is that any distance longer than about 40km is too large.
The most major issue is with the cycle time. Structure grinding set the bar rather too high to take a crack at owning sov. But a 2 minute cycle time and a 100 million isk module is setting the bar entirely too low.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
637
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:44:53 -
[2943] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote: Tell me which ship you have in your hanger that has a lock range of 250 that you envision will be doing these sort of deep territory sov sapping missions.
I didn't say that was my plan. My position is that any distance longer than about 40km is too large. The most major issue is with the cycle time. Structure grinding set the bar rather too high to take a crack at owning sov. But a 2 minute cycle time and a 100 million isk module is setting the bar entirely too low.
Why is it too large? What exactly is stopping you as a defender from killing the target ship?
(BTW you dont have to defend 24 7...only 4 hours in your prime time of choosing.)
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:44:57 -
[2944] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote: What else is there?
Don't even try a false dichotomy. There are more alternatives to sov warfare than grinding structures endlessly and having to babysit each and every structure forever. The 2 minute cycle time is too short, can be done at too long of a distance, and if it's available to frigates it does not give the defender any ability to respond to a pre-reinforced attack short of sitting on that structure literally all the time. That is not an acceptable solution. At what distance would this be happening? The module has a range of 250km. So any distance you feel like, or more accurately any distance you can get out of your choice of capture ship. It makes actually trying to kill them an unviable option(although you can still sensor damp them), which means that you default to sitting on the button yourself with your own Entosis link until the lone attacker gets bored and leaves. The tiny cycle time also opens up the floodgates for using a cov ops ship to ninja cap structures should the system be left alone even for a few moments. Both mechanics combine to basically necessitate having people sit on structures nigh constantly, unless they want to come back every half hour to un-reinforce their structure. (which means they're "defending" their sov, but never using it)
I still think a deployable would almost be a better choice, it would be an ISK sink (somewhat), it would be easy to destroy and would stop frigates from jumping system to system just RFing things without major risk. Make the deployable scoopable by the attacker or defender.
Why not have both a deployable that does it in 3 minutes and a module that takes 5. 75km range.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:44:59 -
[2945] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: The 2 minute cycle time is too short, can be done at too long of a distance, and if it's available to frigates it does not give the defender any ability to respond to a pre-reinforced attack short of sitting on that structure literally all the time.
It's not a 2 minute cycle time to cap a structure. It's a 2 minute cycle time to start capturing it. Which is, IMO, is good idea, because if you only want to use the entosis link to force defenders to undock and get a fight, you don't have to spend half an hour for that.
The question is, how long is the actual capture time. If it's about half an hour, the defender actively living in the same constellation (which seems to be the intent behind the proposed system) has all the time to pull out his own trollceptor, and block your capture until he can form up a proper defence fleet to clear out the ninjas (and no, it's not as impossible as some people running in little circles waving their hands and shouting make it out to seem). |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:46:12 -
[2946] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote: Timers and counters are the only way to do it and it has to be accessible to everyone or we are back to the problem we're in now.
And like I said above. Setting the bar at 2 minutes of time and a 100 million isk module is setting the bar too low.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
302
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:46:57 -
[2947] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Devi Loches wrote:The Entosis trolling will be insane if put into effect right now. Speed tanking will be the best defense with them, especially since any cap ships trying to use them will just get piled on since it takes so long for them. The Entosis needs an effect like siege and triage mods that force the ship to remain stationary, or at least a huge movement penalty.
Also, in many ways this makes Dreads only useful for POS grinding and anti-carrier ops. Carriers can at least triage and support with fighters, but Dreads, and in some ways Titans, are almost obsolete. I always saw dreads as the ultimate structure grinder, but if that doesn't happen anymore, what's the use of them? Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin. These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at 5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s edit: doh my maths, fixed So you propose sniping them? You'll need much larger ships in order to snipe at frigates orbiting 120km away from you. You could try using cormorant. 120 km will be a bit pushing it but that thing has no problems hitting interceptors going 5+ km/s at ~100 .. 110 km.
This is standard MOA Cormorant fit: [Cormorant, Cormorant MK III] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I Sensor Booster II Sensor Booster II
150mm Railgun II 150mm Railgun II 150mm Railgun II 150mm Railgun II 150mm Railgun II 150mm Railgun II 150mm Railgun II Sov Laser I (3.7 grid 5.3 cpu max) ?
Small Hybrid Locus Coordinator I Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Hybrid Locus Coordinator I
Spike S x1000 Javelin S x1000 Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S x1000 Targeting Range Script x2 Scan Resolution Script x2
You might need to switch the damage mods for tracking enhancers (or use different rigs) to hit at 120. With damage mods it's range is 95 + 5 km with spike.
For 120 .. 150 using a Moa or Eagle or T3 would do a better job probably than a BS against very low numbers of interceptors but might be vulnerable if they are not actually at 100 km and are able to burn under the guns before lock can be achieved.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
637
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:47:06 -
[2948] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote: Timers and counters are the only way to do it and it has to be accessible to everyone or we are back to the problem we're in now.
And like I said above. Setting the bar at 2 minutes of time and a 100 million isk module is setting the bar too low.
Why?
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:49:30 -
[2949] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote: Why is it too large? What exactly is stopping you as a defender from killing the target ship?
It's too large because it permits methods of engaging the structure without committing to attacking any defenders.
With a gigantic range on it like it has, if you get a decent kiting cruiser and engage at extreme range, their only chance to deal with you is to just sit on the button with their own Entosis module contesting yours, until one of you gets bored and leaves.
That is not creating conflict. That is incentivizing a lack of conflict.
Quote: (BTW you dont have to defend 24 7...only 4 hours in your prime time of choosing.)
4 hours... per structure, each and every day that someone with a cov ops ship spends 2 minutes while you're asleep reinforcing them.
"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.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:51:47 -
[2950] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote: The question is, how long is the actual capture time.
That's not relevant. The attacker doesn't have to be on grid for that, by all indications. The attacker only has to pop out for 2 minutes, then cloak up in a safe. If they come back and "rep" it, he does it again. If they don't, they have to waste four hours the next day, and the process starts over.
That's just an inordinate amount of babysitting.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Vantigan
Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:54:09 -
[2951] - Quote
public class Sov { public static void main(String[] args) {
int erceptor = troll; String burnSov; switch (erceptor) { case 1: burnSov = "The Goons take over null sec, blue donut complete"; break; case 2: burnSov = "Large alliances hold most of their space, renters suffer the most."; break; case 3: burnSov = "Renters wise up and harass Large alliance sov space and ransom a few systems."; break; case 4: burnSov = if (Interceptor && 250km targeting range) burnSov == true; break; case 5: burnSov = if (Entosis Link cycle time == 10 min) burnSov == true; break; case 6: burnSov = if (!Supers || !Blob) burnSov == true; break; } System.out.println(burnSov); } } |
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
637
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:55:20 -
[2952] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:It's too large because it permits methods of engaging the structure without committing to attacking any defenders.
With a gigantic range on it like it has, if you get a decent kiting cruiser and engage at extreme range, their only chance to deal with you is to just sit on the button with their own Entosis module contesting yours, until one of you gets bored and leaves.
That is not creating conflict. That is incentivizing a lack of conflict.
Or you get your own kiting curiser, and since its YOUR system which you are living in, you should be able to catch that pesky attacker and kill him. That sounds like conflict to me.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:4 hours... per structure, each and every day that someone with a cov ops ship spends 2 minutes while you're asleep reinforcing them.
If you're asleep, obviously it isn't your prime time. If it isn't your prime time, why would your 4 hour window be set up during that time? Think logically here.
If an attacker is hitting a system you live in, in your prime time which you should have people being awake in, why can't you defend your space?
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
637
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:56:08 -
[2953] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Torgeir Hekard wrote: The question is, how long is the actual capture time.
That's not relevant. The attacker doesn't have to be on grid for that, by all indications. The attacker only has to pop out for 2 minutes, then cloak up in a safe. If they come back and "rep" it, he does it again. If they don't, they have to waste four hours the next day, and the process starts over. That's just an inordinate amount of babysitting.
By what indications? You don't even know and you're spouting misinformation.
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
100
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:57:51 -
[2954] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote: Tell me which ship you have in your hanger that has a lock range of 250 that you envision will be doing these sort of deep territory sov sapping missions.
I didn't say that was my plan. My position is that any distance longer than about 40km is too large. The most major issue is with the cycle time. Structure grinding set the bar rather too high to take a crack at owning sov. But a 2 minute cycle time and a 100 million isk module is setting the bar entirely too low.
Pretty much, as currently proposed were are talking about an endeavor in ritual sucide not an endeavor of living or not living in your sov. Aside from the fact that systems should be potentially vulnerable during all timezone, not just a window, as i have said earlier i think some form of the SBU mechanic to induce vulnerability is appropriate. Reinforcing a system should require a fleet, it shouldn't be a task that is capable of being performed by 1 man or even 5 dudes. To own sov you shouldn't need to babysit your assets 24 hours a day, or even 4 hours a day, there needs to be effort expended by the attacker, organized effort at that. 1 dude in an small hull be it bc or frigate shouldn't be capable of reinforcing a system. If the goal is to encourage pvp the current mechanics proposed do not do that, they do however encourage heavy harassment until no one can be arsed to defend sov.
I think the entosis module and time duration rather than hitpoints is good. I think id get rid of the no remote reps bit, and instead require you use 10-20 of them in order to reinforce. The smallest alliance can muster this man power, any sov holding entity or sov aspiring entity should be able to manage these range of numbers. This creates a relatively low barrier to entry, undefended sov will still fall quickly, but it requires an actual fleet and should limit the more asinine forms of useless harassment. Couple this with some sort of low hitpoint fast time vulnerability mechanic reminiscent of the SBU and I think we are well on our way to a better version of the proposed system. Taking sov shouldnt be easy mode nor should defending. Dominion favored the defender a bit to much, this favors the attacker to much. There is a happy middle in there.
A periphery is there should really be a roll for Dreads/supers and carriers in this system as at current there really isnt any other than to plop them on a command node to ensure you control at least one while your subs go to others. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:00:00 -
[2955] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: That's not relevant. The attacker doesn't have to be on grid for that, by all indications. The attacker only has to pop out for 2 minutes, then cloak up in a safe. If they come back and "rep" it, he does it again. If they don't, they have to waste four hours the next day, and the process starts over.
In my personal experience even goons that take pride in their love to grief others give up on chasing random stragglers in a camped system in their own space well before the logoff timer runs out.
If some random dude wants to spend all of his free time orbiting beacons without any fun or profit, the defender might as well put an alt on a trollceptor in the contested system and make the life of the so-called griefer an excersieze in futility. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:00:19 -
[2956] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote: Or you get your own kiting curiser, and since its YOUR system which you are living in, you should be able to catch that pesky attacker and kill him. That sounds like conflict to me.
You ought to know by now that most people will take the low road.
That being, to park a tanky ship with a cyno in the highslots on the button contesting it.
Quote: If you're asleep, obviously it isn't your prime time. If it isn't your prime time, why would your 4 hour window be set up during that time? Think logically here.
Did you even read what I wrote? It's vulnerable to reinforce at all times, not just prime time. But once it is reinforced, you are committed to 4 hours time tax the next day, per structure, because there is zero recourse against something that takes only two minutes without being on each and every structure 24/7.
"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.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:01:32 -
[2957] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote: By what indications?
Read the dev blog.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
637
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:02:07 -
[2958] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote: Tell me which ship you have in your hanger that has a lock range of 250 that you envision will be doing these sort of deep territory sov sapping missions.
I didn't say that was my plan. My position is that any distance longer than about 40km is too large. The most major issue is with the cycle time. Structure grinding set the bar rather too high to take a crack at owning sov. But a 2 minute cycle time and a 100 million isk module is setting the bar entirely too low. Pretty much, as currently proposed were are talking about an endeavor in ritual sucide not an endeavor of living or not living in your sov. Aside from the fact that systems should be potentially vulnerable during all timezone, not just a window, as i have said earlier i think some form of the SBU mechanic to induce vulnerability is appropriate. Reinforcing a system should require a fleet, it shouldn't be a task that is capable of being performed by 1 man or even 5 dudes. To own sov you shouldn't need to babysit your assets 24 hours a day, or even 4 hours a day, there needs to be effort expended by the attacker, organized effort at that. 1 dude in an small hull be it bc or frigate shouldn't be capable of reinforcing a system. If the goal is to encourage pvp the current mechanics proposed do not do that, they do however encourage heavy harassment until no one can be arsed to defend sov. I think the entosis module and time duration rather than hitpoints is good. I think id get rid of the no remote reps bit, and instead require you use 10-20 of them in order to reinforce. The smallest alliance can muster this man power, any sov holding entity or sov aspiring entity should be able to manage these range of numbers. This creates a relatively low barrier to entry, undefended sov will still fall quickly, but it requires an actual fleet and should limit the more asinine forms of useless harassment. Couple this with some sort of low hitpoint fast time vulnerability mechanic reminiscent of the SBU and I think we are well on our way to a better version of the proposed system. Taking sov shouldnt be easy mode nor should defending. Dominion favored the defender a bit to much, this favors the attacker to much. There is a happy middle in there. A periphery is there should really be a roll for Dreads/supers and carriers in this system as at current there really isnt any other than to plop them on a command node to ensure you control at least one while your subs go to others.
But here' the thing none of you are getting...1 man isn't going to reinforce any sov...unless it's unoccupied. This only works if these systems are unoccupied in which case, yeah 1 guy should RF them easy. But if people actually OCCUPY the system, it's reasonable to assume there's at least 2 or 3 guys in that staion willing to undock and kill the 1 attacker. So the attacker will have to escalate...to larger fleet, which will make the defender form a larger fleet.
So this idea that lone ceptors are going to go around destroying everything in 0.0 is complete non sense void of any forethought, logic or reasoning.
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
637
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:05:37 -
[2959] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You ought to know by now that most people will take the low road.
That being, to park a tanky ship with a cyno in the highslots on the button contesting it.
And the defender doesn't have the option to do the same?
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Did you even read what I wrote? It's vulnerable to reinforce at all times, not just prime time. But once it is reinforced, you are committed to 4 hours time tax the next day, per structure, because there is zero recourse against something that takes only two minutes without being on each and every structure 24/7.
No where in the devblog have I seen that you can RF things in 2 minutes. IT states that the modules takes 2 minutes to start activating. Can you please direct me to your source and other "indications?"
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1815
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:06:46 -
[2960] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:9) I am amazed none of you realized that intel and cloaky camping will have a new purpose. Watching local to see if and when nobody is home during prime time. Or when the defense force tends to be lax. You can accomplish this just by looking at dotlan. Or, probably, the in game map but I wouldn't know about that.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:07:06 -
[2961] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote: But here' the thing none of you are getting...1 man isn't going to reinforce any sov...unless it's unoccupied.
Yeah, they can, because it takes a mere 2 minutes and people have to sleep and eat and use the bathroom. If someone lives in a system, it is not "unoccupied" just because they have to sleep.
Why do you think that owning sov should be a job, instead of a videogame?
"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.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:09:49 -
[2962] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote: And the defender doesn't have the option to do the same?
You genuinely can't read tonight.
I'm talking about the defender.
Quote:
No where in the devblog have I seen that you can RF things in 2 minutes. IT states that the modules takes 2 minutes to start activating. Can you please direct me to your source and other "indications?"
You've gone full ******.
The Dev Blog you obviously didn't read wrote: Entosis Links have a significant cycle time (5 minutes for the Tech One variant, 2 minutes for Tech Two) and do not start affecting the battle for control of the target structure until the end of their first cycle.
That means all you have to do is finish a 2 minute cycle while they're asleep or on the can, and it's done.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
101
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:10:11 -
[2963] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Torgeir Hekard wrote: The question is, how long is the actual capture time.
That's not relevant. The attacker doesn't have to be on grid for that, by all indications. The attacker only has to pop out for 2 minutes, then cloak up in a safe. If they come back and "rep" it, he does it again. If they don't, they have to waste four hours the next day, and the process starts over. That's just an inordinate amount of babysitting. By what indications? You don't even know and you're spouting misinformation.
as currently proposed he is right, there is far to much babysitting required because the vulnerability mechanics of systems are absolutely terrible. Yes his specific example is pretty meh, but the general gist of the proposal as written suggests that for 4 hours each day as a sov holder you really have to focus all your attention on defense, that is nto a good system because while many in nullsec like to focus on pvp, they do also want and need to make money, the risk versus reward equation is way out of whack and you wouldn't have goons and n3 agreeing with each other on this aspect unless it was quite bad which it is.
The argument I have seen the most of so far is that the 4 hour vulnrability is the "occupancy" factor of the system. Its really not, if alliance could survive on only owning 1 or 2 constellations of sov trust me we would, but the cold hard fact is that 90% of systems are 100% useless in most regions. In order for a system to be worht using in a PVE capacity it needs to be off pipe/or far away from your borders, have -5 or better truesec, and preferably be a deadend of some sort. This is the requisite amount of safety required to be on par with other isk making methods see highsec, missions in general, incursions ect. If you make space worth owning that alone will create a large amount of PVP content. I.E. see just about every moon rebalance and how fast it has ignited wars. Tech led to the fall of the NC, then the fall of raiden. WN and the tribute war. The r64 rebalance created the fountain and delve wars.
Nothing in this game creates conflict better than money making incentives. Wars have been over moons and renters more than any other reason in the game. Money talks, this system does not speak to that equation so you are missing the inherent conflict driver. The only driver that exists as written is the pain in the butt factor. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:10:33 -
[2964] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Yeah, they can, because it takes a mere 2 minutes and people have to sleep and eat and use the bathroom. If someone lives in a system, it is not "unoccupied" just because they have to sleep.
If they have to sleep during their declared prime time, you've got to ask them some interesting questions. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:13:26 -
[2965] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Yeah, they can, because it takes a mere 2 minutes and people have to sleep and eat and use the bathroom. If someone lives in a system, it is not "unoccupied" just because they have to sleep.
If they have to sleep during their declared prime time, you've got to ask them some interesting questions.
You. Can. Reinforce. The. Structure. At. Any. Time.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:14:32 -
[2966] - Quote
Thats a nice ihub you got there. Would be a shame if you lost it.
We dont even have to manage rentel empires any more. We just have to sit in NPC space and send out mails. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:16:19 -
[2967] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You. Can. Reinforce. The. Structure. At. Any. Time. It's not physically possible to be that bad at reading, isn't it?
Quote:The new setting will then take effect and become the new daily vulnerability window.
This will determine the time period within which all Sovereignty structures belonging to that alliance are vulnerable to be reinforced |
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
637
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:17:27 -
[2968] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote: But here' the thing none of you are getting...1 man isn't going to reinforce any sov...unless it's unoccupied.
Yeah, they can, because it takes a mere 2 minutes and people have to sleep and eat and use the bathroom. If someone lives in a system, it is not "unoccupied" just because they have to sleep. Why do you think that owning sov should be a job, instead of a videogame?
In the new Sovereignty system, each alliance will designate a four hour window through a new option available in the Corporation Management window to certain members of the alliance executor corp. This period will represent the allianceGÇÖs declared prime time, and will be visible in the show info window for the alliance and in the show info window for each Sovereignty structure belonging to that alliance.
When an alliance changes their prime time window, their new choice will not take effect until after 96 hours have passed. At the end of this 96 hour waiting period all the structures belonging to that alliance will be vulnerable twice in the same 24 hour period (one in the old window and once in the new one). The new setting will then take effect and become the new daily vulnerability window.
This will determine the time period within which all Sovereignty structures belonging to that alliance are vulnerable to be reinforced, and the time period within which the exit time of all reinforcement periods for that allianceGÇÖs Sovereignty structures will be randomly selected. All Sovereignty structures belonging to the alliance will become vulnerable to be reinforced during that same four hour period every day, except for days when those structures are in the middle of a reinforcement period.
This allows alliances to ensure that they can defend their structures both from initial attacks and in subsequent Capture Events through active combat in their most important time zone. The fact that all structures belonging to the same alliance will be vulnerable during the same period of time allows more localized attackers to receive an advantage over a more widely spread defender since the defender will need to respond to attacks anywhere in their territory.
During the vulnerability period any character can activate an Entosis Link on the Sovereignty structures to begin the process of reinforcing it. Once the first cycle of the Entosis Link completes and the capture progress begins the Alliance who owns the structure will be notified of the attack and will need to respond in order to prevent the attackers from reinforcing the structure.
Reinforcing a Sovereignty structure with the Entosis Link will take anywhere between 10 minutes and 40 minutes of uncontested capture, depending on the level of occupancy defense bonuses in the system. If the attackers are successful in completing the capture progress, the structure will pick a random time within the same prime time window two days later, and enter reinforced mode until then.
If a structure is partially captured at the end of the vulnerability window, it will remain vulnerable until it is either captured and enters reinforced mode or is returned to full owner control by the owning alliance using their own Entosis links.
Although reinforcing of Sovereignty structures may only occur during the owning allianceGÇÖs prime time window, station services can be disabled at any time through use of the Entosis Link for between 5 and 20 minutes (depending on occupancy levels).
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:18:57 -
[2969] - Quote
Vyl Vit wrote:Isn't it so like this current playerbase to point the finger at the mod and completely overlook the greater dynamics this new SOV change will bring? Why is this? The new mod itself is little more than a pointing finger. The discussion is all about sawing off the pointing finger, or keeping the pointing finger from being sawed off, or why can just anybody point the finger? None of it is a lively discussion about how this change will affect two things that have plagued the majority of New Eden for years - blue blobs and blue donuts. Under Band of Brothers, a huge section of the map was in stasis forcing players onto a small section of null sec space. Under the Blue Donut, all that happens in null sec is people rent from other people.
The majority of items in the game just aren't being used, and in both instances of "natural" game play, the "natural" result seems to be (once again) freezing up the majority of New Eden. This certainly isn't gameplay. DIddling around with one or two elements without pulling the entirety of EVE's features into play isn't gameplay either. It's diddling around. At last with this new approach there's a significant potential to pull EVE into the game of EVE. People who are focusing on the mod, and trying to find ways to circumvent things like downtime visa vis prime time will miss the boat entirely. People, and CEOs/Alliance leaderships that focus on all the aspects of the game - the development of systems, the sovereignty panel, the many and varied skills of the group now disparagingly called "carebears" WILL WIN.
So, yes. Do continue your bogged down in minutia discussion of the module, and how someone might circumvent the intended with the clever. However, understand in so doing you're demonstrating how little you've bothered to learn about the wider game of EVE. It's like obsessing on the queen's hair-do and not developing a strong pawn game. And, as anyone who knows chess will tell you, the game is won with the pawn game, not the queen.
I look forward to seeing the hindparts of The Blue Donut as it disappears over the horizon looking for another game to smother. I'm even looking forward to seeing the departure of people whose imaginations and true strategic abilities only amount to that. I'm going to enjoy ganking becoming an annoyance (as it rightly is) and emergent gameplay suddenly becoming playing EVE again!
I appreciate everyone's effort to support our game through this forum. I only suggest those who are fixated on a module try expanding your understanding of this game we play by taking a look at the map, and the other panels that seem to never get used. They are going to be the central focus of the game now - as it should be.
"The battle is won before it is fought." -Sun Tzu's way of saying "know what you're doing."-
Well Excuse our narrow-mindedness Sir.
But i believe that before we got to band over the question "WHY" would a group of player want to live in NullSec, we must answer the question "HOW". |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
827
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:19:51 -
[2970] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:a) nobody puts a small tower on a r64 moon b) siphons c) every line members gets in touch with it, it's called SRP - ever seen the SRP bills of alliances? d) if it's so much isk, why do alliances rent out space?
It's not like there are 4 trillion of ISKs flowing into the pockets of 1 guy. It's divided up between lowsec/nullsec entities, fought over, needs to be transported, manufactured, etc.
Yes, it's a lot of isks but considering how many hands it's running through and the monthy upkeep + strategic/logistic work done... not that great. If you feel like it, go take a hit at a lowsec r64 and check for yourself how much fun it is to have one! Oh I'm fully aware of this, I just needed a rough figure to bounce around when people are saying that nullsec is so poor at the moment. I mean the 4T across the whole of New Eden is a definite lowball estimate if you check the coverage percentages on dotlan as well. I'm not saying it's all going into Mittens pockets directly buuuut I'm also quite sure he doesn't do much afktar-ing either when he needs a new ship to whelp. As I say, it's top down income - would be far more interesting to have industry guys actively mining that stuff and have a bottom up process. I don't get any of it.
I wouldn't have expected for a moment that you did - HOWEVER it cannot be ignored as it is a massive source of NULL income, even if the only way people see it is in SRP.
Ignoring moon goo is like ignoring LPs in high sec.
Also, null PI isn't too shabby.
Point being - I've no problem with a null income rebalance - but it might not go quite the way we expect (or hope). |
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:21:18 -
[2971] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:Thats a nice ihub you got there. Would be a shame if you lost it.
We dont even have to manage rentel empires any more. We just have to sit in NPC space and send out mails. Congratulations. You finally mastered the proper way of renting out space.
That's how stain guys were operating a couple of years ago. They made renters around stain pay monthly ransoms to be left alone. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:23:40 -
[2972] - Quote
Well, missed that part. (God, their layout for that sucks) That's better than I had realized, although still not ideal.
It still mandates babysitting your structures when you should be out using your space and doing things.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
101
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:24:45 -
[2973] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:Vigilanta wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote: Tell me which ship you have in your hanger that has a lock range of 250 that you envision will be doing these sort of deep territory sov sapping missions.
I didn't say that was my plan. My position is that any distance longer than about 40km is too large. The most major issue is with the cycle time. Structure grinding set the bar rather too high to take a crack at owning sov. But a 2 minute cycle time and a 100 million isk module is setting the bar entirely too low. Pretty much, as currently proposed were are talking about an endeavor in ritual sucide not an endeavor of living or not living in your sov. Aside from the fact that systems should be potentially vulnerable during all timezone, not just a window, as i have said earlier i think some form of the SBU mechanic to induce vulnerability is appropriate. Reinforcing a system should require a fleet, it shouldn't be a task that is capable of being performed by 1 man or even 5 dudes. To own sov you shouldn't need to babysit your assets 24 hours a day, or even 4 hours a day, there needs to be effort expended by the attacker, organized effort at that. 1 dude in an small hull be it bc or frigate shouldn't be capable of reinforcing a system. If the goal is to encourage pvp the current mechanics proposed do not do that, they do however encourage heavy harassment until no one can be arsed to defend sov. I think the entosis module and time duration rather than hitpoints is good. I think id get rid of the no remote reps bit, and instead require you use 10-20 of them in order to reinforce. The smallest alliance can muster this man power, any sov holding entity or sov aspiring entity should be able to manage these range of numbers. This creates a relatively low barrier to entry, undefended sov will still fall quickly, but it requires an actual fleet and should limit the more asinine forms of useless harassment. Couple this with some sort of low hitpoint fast time vulnerability mechanic reminiscent of the SBU and I think we are well on our way to a better version of the proposed system. Taking sov shouldnt be easy mode nor should defending. Dominion favored the defender a bit to much, this favors the attacker to much. There is a happy middle in there. A periphery is there should really be a roll for Dreads/supers and carriers in this system as at current there really isnt any other than to plop them on a command node to ensure you control at least one while your subs go to others. But here' the thing none of you are getting...1 man isn't going to reinforce any sov...unless it's unoccupied. This only works if these systems are unoccupied in which case, yeah 1 guy should RF them easy. But if people actually OCCUPY the system, it's reasonable to assume there's at least 2 or 3 guys in that staion willing to undock and kill the 1 attacker. So the attacker will have to escalate...to larger fleet, which will make the defender form a larger fleet. So this idea that lone ceptors are going to go around destroying everything in 0.0 is complete non sense void of any forethought, logic or reasoning.
I want 24 hour vulnerability, your never going to have say an allaince ownign 30 systems have everyone of them occupied all 24 hours of a day, hell even in primetime you wont have all 30 occupied. And for a large nullsec alliance 30 systems owned should be a reasonable number to hold under any sov system. If you make it less than that then there will be no fighting in nullsec because ther eowuld be to many systems and not enough people |
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
109
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:25:27 -
[2974] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:The Dev Blog you obviously didn't read wrote: Entosis Links have a significant cycle time (5 minutes for the Tech One variant, 2 minutes for Tech Two) and do not start affecting the battle for control of the target structure until the end of their first cycle.
That means all you have to do is finish a 2 minute cycle while they're asleep or on the can, and it's done.
Lol, dude.... You REALLY might want to read the dev blog yourself before ranting over people to read the dev blog. Hint: http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66967/1/OccupancyExamples.jpg
Also the text you quoted doesn't say that you can RF something in 2 minutes. Just that it takes a minimum of 2(5) minutes to make any progress towards RFing something. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
702
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:27:49 -
[2975] - Quote
Here is the thing which is pretty evident to me and which has got some people riled up, the IHUB will be number 1 target as part of economic warfare that is obvious. Without any doubt this will reduce the value of null sec which is why stage 3 is very important indeed, CCP needs to bear this in mind and adjust accordingly.
I spoke to 3 ex-players yesterday about this change, 2 have now re-subbed and the 3rd will be doing so soon, they are talking to other ex-players, they are looking forward to the small fights that they enjoyed so much coming back to Eve.
I am sorry that I posted so much in this thread, but I wanted to make sure that small entity voices would be heard in this to counter some of the misconceptions branded around, trollceptors being one.
Smaller groups want to own a system or two, they want small fun fights around that system, they want to be able to make ISk from that system to fund the PvP, they don't want to be easily steam rolled by supers and titans, they want a way to resist.
The large coalitions have got there through sheer effort, but in doing so they have reduced the fun for many in the game, I personally do not see this as the end of coalitions, just a new chapter, as far as I am concerned the Goons will continue to be strong, the CFC may or may not diminish, I see no reason why it should. What will be exciting is lots of small entities popping up all of the place creating content and that should excite people.
People are hung up on mechanics, well let me point out that you have to take the rough with the smooth, I was having fun opposing freighter ganks, the gankers use game mechanics to scoop the loot, its clever and effective and evades suspect responsibility, I looked at the mechanic, understood why CCP could not do anything about it and moved on, no beef on my side except stating that Eve is not so dark and cold for gankers, but the conflict around those events is more important than the mechanics, they have an advantage, should I cry myself to sleep or just shrug and get on with it and blow up the wreck with a ganker alt instead, you see what I am getting at.
Stop moaning grid your loins and give it a go, you might even have fun, perish the thought.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:28:02 -
[2976] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote: Lol, dude.... You REALLY might want to read the dev blog yourself before ranting over people to read the dev blog.
They already corrected me on that, but thanks. It's still a lousy system that makes you babysit structures when you should be actually using your space instead, thanks to the ridiculously low cycle time.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
638
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:28:05 -
[2977] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Well, missed that part. (God, their layout for that sucks) That's better than I had realized, although still not ideal.
It still mandates babysitting your structures when you should be out using your space and doing things.
It mandates living in your system. You should be using the very system which the enemy may want to take from you. It makes small roaming gangs meaningful. Now you can get in a fleet with 10 of your buddies and have an impact, either as a patrol or an attacker.
I'm also relieved that it isn't in fact too late for me and that apparently I'm the one that can read.
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
nossler
Ghost Net Industrialists Alternate Allegiance
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:29:04 -
[2978] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:The Dev Blog you obviously didn't read wrote: Entosis Links have a significant cycle time (5 minutes for the Tech One variant, 2 minutes for Tech Two) and do not start affecting the battle for control of the target structure until the end of their first cycle.
That means all you have to do is finish a 2 minute cycle while they're asleep or on the can, and it's done. Lol, dude.... You REALLY might want to read the dev blog yourself before ranting over people to read the dev blog. Hint: http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66967/1/OccupancyExamples.jpg Also the text you quoted doesn't say that you can RF something in 2 minutes. Just that it takes a minimum of 2(5) minutes to make any progress towards RFing something.
So reading comprehension is no longer taught in school then?? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:31:04 -
[2979] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote: It mandates living in your system.
Your worthless, truesec system with an income below that of L4 missions...
Quote:I'm also relieved that it isn't in fact too late for me and that apparently I'm the one that can read.
But I can blame mine on the ****** mobile layout they have for that dev blog. Genuinely atrocious, but that's what I get for posting from my phone.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
101
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:33:31 -
[2980] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote: It mandates living in your system.
Your worthless, truesec system with an income below that of L4 missions... Quote:I'm also relieved that it isn't in fact too late for me and that apparently I'm the one that can read. But I can blame mine on the ****** mobile layout they have for that dev blog. Genuinely atrocious, but that's what I get for posting from my phone.
Me agreeing with a member of code, the only organization that i dislike more than the CFC, hell has frozen over. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:34:09 -
[2981] - Quote
nossler wrote:
So reading comprehension is no longer taught in school then??
That depends, at least in regards to this part.
Quote: Also the text you quoted doesn't say that you can RF something in 2 minutes. Just that it takes a minimum of 2(5) minutes to make any progress towards RFing something.
Because it sure looks like it does.
Quote:exerting uncontested control over Territorial Claim Units, Infrastructure Hubs and Outposts will take 10 minutes (plus the duration of the first cycle)
So, pop the first cycle, leave, if it's not contested again in ten minutes, it's reinforced. Unless that sentence means that you have to cycle the whole thing for that time, which if that's the case, they should just say that then. Because the flowchart suggests that you have to do it once, and that the other timer is for the defender to respond with a contesting Entosis cycle.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Forsaken Asylum
638
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:37:20 -
[2982] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote: It mandates living in your system.
Your worthless, truesec system with an income below that of L4 missions... Quote:I'm also relieved that it isn't in fact too late for me and that apparently I'm the one that can read. But I can blame mine on the ****** mobile layout they have for that dev blog. Genuinely atrocious, but that's what I get for posting from my phone.
If truesec is so worthless, nobody would be living in them. At this point you've shown that you're having...ahem...phone troubles so reading is out of the question yet you are insisting on your poorly thought of concepts concerning the mechanic even though you've been proven wrong on every account.
Do yourself a favor, apologize for rudely and hypocritically accusing others of not being able to read, and come look at this thread in 3 days after you've read the devblog a few times.
Hades Effect Mercenary Services / 3rd Party Services
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
101
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:37:32 -
[2983] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:exerting uncontested control over Territorial Claim Units, Infrastructure Hubs and Outposts will take 10 minutes (plus the duration of the first cycle) So, pop the first cycle, leave, if it's not contested again in ten minutes, it's reinforced.
There are occumpancy modifiers for strategic, military and industry levels that can increase that timer, so systems that are well used will take vastly longer, but the more strategic systems for jbs and beacons will be closer to 10 minutes.
TBH, i think industry jobs i.e. the amount of building going on tin the system shoudl help modify the industrial index, or cretate a 4th index for industry jobs. Creates another way for an attacker to choose what systems to harass AND creates another modifier on sov timers. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
828
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:38:24 -
[2984] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote: Tell me which ship you have in your hanger that has a lock range of 250 that you envision will be doing these sort of deep territory sov sapping missions.
I didn't say that was my plan. My position is that any distance longer than about 40km is too large. The most major issue is with the cycle time. Structure grinding set the bar rather too high to take a crack at owning sov. But a 2 minute cycle time and a 100 million isk module is setting the bar entirely too low.
For the nth time.
Its a 2 minute cycle time to START the process.
It is a minimum of 12 minutes, in a completely neglected, unused system to RF things. That gives the owners a minimum of 10 minutes to get a SINGLE ship on grid and block you.
Stop spewing the garbage that you can RF anything in 2 minutes. It is a flat out fabrication. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
828
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:39:35 -
[2985] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Yeah, they can, because it takes a mere 2 minutes and people have to sleep and eat and use the bathroom. If someone lives in a system, it is not "unoccupied" just because they have to sleep.
If they have to sleep during their declared prime time, you've got to ask them some interesting questions. You. Can. Reinforce. The. Structure. At. Any. Time.
No. You. Cant. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:40:23 -
[2986] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Yeah, they can, because it takes a mere 2 minutes and people have to sleep and eat and use the bathroom. If someone lives in a system, it is not "unoccupied" just because they have to sleep.
If they have to sleep during their declared prime time, you've got to ask them some interesting questions. You. Can. Reinforce. The. Structure. At. Any. Time. No. You. Cant.
Already pointed out, thanks.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:42:24 -
[2987] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: So, pop the first cycle, leave, if it's not contested again in ten minutes, it's reinforced. Unless that sentence means that you have to cycle the whole thing for that time, which if that's the case, they should just say that then. Because the flowchart suggests that you have to do it once, and that the other timer is for the defender to respond with a contesting Entosis cycle.
As far as I understand, The Module has a 2 minute spool up time after which it starts affecting the timer. So each time you enter the grid you have to spend at least 2 minutes on grid to start affecting the timer. If you leave the grid, the timer stops. If you return, you need to spool up for 2 minutes again.
Now if there are two of you and one leaves, the other one continues to spin the timer, but if you return, activate the module and your buddy leaves immediately, the timer stops until your personal spin up timer passes. So you can't do a rewarp relay race, and each and every person willing to affect the timer HAS to spend at least 2 minutes on grid. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
828
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:44:28 -
[2988] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: So, pop the first cycle, leave, if it's not contested again in ten minutes, it's reinforced. Unless that sentence means that you have to cycle the whole thing for that time, which if that's the case, they should just say that then. Because the flowchart suggests that you have to do it once, and that the other timer is for the defender to respond with a contesting Entosis cycle.
As far as I understand, The Module has a 2 minute spool up time after which it starts affecting the timer. So each time you enter the grid you have to spend at least 2 minutes on grid to start affecting the timer. If you leave the grid, the timer stops. If you return, you need to spool up for 2 minutes again. Now if there are two of you and one leaves, the other one continues to spin the timer, but if you return, activate the module and your buddy leaves immediately, the timer stops until your personal spin up timer passes. So you can't do a rewarp relay race, and each and every person willing to affect the timer HAS to spend at least 2 minutes on grid.
Correct.
This flowchart should hopefully put this to the grave once and for all (with two in the head)
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66967/1/entosislinksimple_(1).jpg
Bottom box - No links active, progress paused. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:46:05 -
[2989] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote: As far as I understand, The Module has a 2 minute spool up time after which it starts affecting the timer.
Yep, confirmed in the blog. (how does that not seem ridiculously low to you?)
Quote: So each time you enter the grid you have to spend at least 2 minutes on grid to start affecting the timer. If you leave the grid, the timer stops. If you return, you need to spool up for 2 minutes again.
Okay, I can't find anywhere where it says that. Please quote it, because it sure seems to me that completing one cycle is enough.
What I'd like it to be, is that the attacker needs to keep an active Entosis module for the entire capture period. But that is far from clear just from what I'm seeing in the blog. So if you're seeing otherwise, I'd like to see it too.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:47:50 -
[2990] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Bottom box - No links active, progress paused.
Either I'm wrong or that flowchart is misleading in what counts as an active Entosis link. That is, an entosis link is considered active AFTER it finished it's first cycle in an uninterruped sequence of it's own cycles. |
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:50:28 -
[2991] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: What I'd like it to be, is that the attacker needs to keep an active Entosis module for the entire capture period. But that is far from clear just from what I'm seeing in the blog. So if you're seeing otherwise, I'd like to see it too.
The flowchart linked above (and in the original article) seems to imply that's the case. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:54:15 -
[2992] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: What I'd like it to be, is that the attacker needs to keep an active Entosis module for the entire capture period. But that is far from clear just from what I'm seeing in the blog. So if you're seeing otherwise, I'd like to see it too.
The flowchart linked above (and in the original article) seems to imply that's the case.
They seriously need to hire a full time proof reader. I'd like to see a separate thread for each of the wackassed things that these do, laid out more simply.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
582
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:00:29 -
[2993] - Quote
Question is : if this remains unchanged until Fanfest - how many of you are gonna "boo" Hillmar ? :D
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:06:39 -
[2994] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: It's that, since it only takes two minutes to complete a reinforce
You seem to be under the impression, that it takes only one cycle to RF a structure. That's blatantly false.
It takes one cycle to START the capture process, after which you will have to keep it active to tick down the remaining capture time, which for a not yet entosed structure is 10*(1<=index modifier<=4).
The process is still trollish, but not to the extend you're making it. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12021
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:10:39 -
[2995] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: The process is still trollish, but not to the extend you're making it.
Seemingly correct, as was pointed out well before you. I'd still love CCP's clarification, however, as the dev blog leaves me with several confusions.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
690
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:39:21 -
[2996] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Torgeir Hekard wrote: The question is, how long is the actual capture time.
That's not relevant. The attacker doesn't have to be on grid for that, by all indications. The attacker only has to pop out for 2 minutes, then cloak up in a safe. If they come back and "rep" it, he does it again. If they don't, they have to waste four hours the next day, and the process starts over. That's just an inordinate amount of babysitting. By what indications? You don't even know and you're spouting misinformation. as currently proposed he is right, there is far to much babysitting required because the vulnerability mechanics of systems are absolutely terrible. Yes his specific example is pretty meh, but the general gist of the proposal as written suggests that for 4 hours each day as a sov holder you really have to focus all your attention on defense, that is nto a good system because while many in nullsec like to focus on pvp, they do also want and need to make money, the risk versus reward equation is way out of whack and you wouldn't have goons and n3 agreeing with each other on this aspect unless it was quite bad which it is. The argument I have seen the most of so far is that the 4 hour vulnrability is the "occupancy" factor of the system. Its really not, if alliance could survive on only owning 1 or 2 constellations of sov trust me we would, but the cold hard fact is that 90% of systems are 100% useless in most regions. In order for a system to be worth using in a PVE capacity it needs to be off pipe/or far away from your borders, have -5 or better truesec, and preferably be a deadend of some sort. This is the requisite amount of safety required to be on par with other isk making methods see highsec, missions in general, incursions ect. If you make space worth owning that alone will create a large amount of PVP content. I.E. see just about every moon rebalance and how fast it has ignited wars. Tech led to the fall of the NC, then the fall of raiden. WN and the tribute war. The r64 rebalance created the fountain and delve wars. Nothing in this game creates conflict better than money making incentives. Wars have been over moons and renters more than any other reason in the game. Money talks, this system does not speak to that equation so you are missing the inherent conflict driver. The only driver that exists as written is the pain in the butt factor. Whats even more hilarious is if all the people in this thread who are not part of incumbent nullsec and keep saying ya the empires and coalitions will finally fall had banded together under the old system of sov dominion or pos warfare they would likely own a region or more of space ALREADY. The key to nullsec is in fact not fleet numbers, supercapital count or even the amount of money in your warchest. It is and always has been organization. The other 3 factors help and yes there is at least some fleet numbers required but by in large it is organization that controls sov ownership. Under the new sov system this doesn't change, organized powers will always beat unorganized powers and control more or better space. The only thing the new system controls is how many people will want to bother with sov at all. What many of you may fail to realize just because you were not involved or not at a level to know is that most sov wars are lost by the organization, not disparities in fleet numbers or capitals. Fountain war is a key example, as is the halloween war. Test didn't lose because of numbers it lost because its leadership fell to pieces under the organization stress of fighting the war. The halloween war very very similar, the russian leadership of the coalition fell to internal strife. Its likely that the war could have gone 6 months or more in immensea under russian ownership had this leadership strife not occured. The likely reason you are nto seeing a war between the coalitions now is because we know there are sov changes coming, we have known since july and as such no one wanted to commit to stress of sov war until we knew whether or not we even had a reason to fight. No sense in starting a war over space if you dont even know if the new system will allow you to keep what you took. CCP take heed. linkback
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
597
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:45:36 -
[2997] - Quote
If CCP was smart, then instead of just rolling this out onto Tranquility, they should let it run (at least) three to six months on the test server to see how null sec ebbs and flows. |
AlexKent
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:50:05 -
[2998] - Quote
In its current form I doubt there are many small entities looking at capturing and holding sov outside of griefing purpose. Although that will always play a major part in eve, the end-goal should be to make people WANT to live in null, build a home there, defend it and growing as an organization (not necessary in numbers). Renters who just want to PVE will feel unsafe, NPC null residents will never consider capturing systems to actually live in, the skilled corps will prefer the wormholes or lowsec, the major coalitions will abandon the useless space and the problem of empty regions will remain untouched. Why? Because so many systems are not worth owning and there is no possibility to make them any better.
I strongly think a basic concept of phase 3 (giving value to nullsec) should be formulated (not implemented) before we can analyse the current proposed changes. Post a thread with a few hints and let people's ideas flow.
Most of nullsec in its current form is not worth defending. I understand the current changes need to come before a potential null buff, but some hints about the future should be posted for consideration. This would give us a bigger picture of where the game is heading.
It does not need to be detailed and specific, just a few guidelines and the possibility to make our voices heard. It would calm the spirits and allow us to asses the full future of a nullsec scenery.
The same for a potential supercap re-balancing or re-purposing. All we need is a thread from a dev confirming they are looking to implement changes and are looking for feedback.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
690
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:50:46 -
[2999] - Quote
Guttripper wrote:If CCP was smart, then instead of just rolling this out onto Tranquility, they should let it run (at least) three to six months on the test server to see how null sec ebbs and flows. That's not gonna do ****. Sit in the corner and think about it for a few minutes. You can come back to the discussion when you think you have the answer why.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12023
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:53:51 -
[3000] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Thank you Rifter! That is, more or less, the summation of several of my concerns with this proposed system.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
tlmitf
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:54:12 -
[3001] - Quote
http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor
In reply to the issues raised in this article about interceptors being used to "troll" alliances, the answer is simple.
You add a fitting restriction. Simple lore drivin fitting requirement stating that any ship that has bubble immunity cannot fit the sov-laser due to incompatible tech. This eliminates them being fitted to inties, nulli-T3's and at a stretch, supercarriers. Simple gate camps at choke points with bubbles will provide security against griefing runs, but a gang can still push through for a 'real' attack on sov.
Think about it for a moment. Any ship carrying the module cannot simply flee a bubble, making them catchable in a simple gatecamp. Any sov holding entity should have functional intel reporting systems, alerting people to an inbound gang. OR, once a system starts to get captured by someone that slipped in, defences can go up, alerts raised and people caught and killed.
The lore would be simple. The advanced electronics that grant interdiction nullification abilities is at odds with the new sov-laser and will not work. This is why I mentioned supercarriers. While they only get caught in bubbles, they still have interdiction nullification technology. I just works backwards to the T3 or inty.
The means that a gate camp will pick up any ship coming in with the intent of disrupting sov. We all know that a small gate camp will be overwhelmed easily enough with a bit of effort, which even the smallest sov-desiring entity would be able to muster. That, or you just slip a inty in with a cyno and jump a gang in that way. Which has range limitations. Unlike the interceptor with a sov-laser. |
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:55:00 -
[3002] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: 3) Goons will ruin everything. How is that different from any other point in the past few years. The do because they like to.
Actually on point 3 we couldn't ruin everything before, there were limits imposed by timers and EHP. Now we can conceivably make every sov-null system outside of the homeland burn in the space of a month.
12 000 / 3294 = ?
Mmh seems you could not.
Either you miss the point here or you are just trolling.
Miner Hottie wrote: 10) All night shops are open 24 hours a day by rotating their staff. A large multi-timezone organization could do the same for the prime time to make things interesting for different parts of its membership.
11) If I were an Aussie alliance I would hire mercs to drag a late night prime time over to my slot so we could finish it off. Remember prime time is when the battle has to start, not end.
The primetime should be scaled with alliance size. The bigger you are the bigger should be your primetime. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
828
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:01:32 -
[3003] - Quote
tlmitf wrote:http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor
In reply to the issues raised in this article about interceptors being used to "troll" alliances, the answer is simple.
You add a fitting restriction.
Paws off my 100m killmails which I'll splash for funsies. |
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:01:54 -
[3004] - Quote
tlmitf wrote:http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor
In reply to the issues raised in this article about interceptors being used to "troll" alliances, the answer is simple.
The answer is : there is no issue with trollceptors. It was discussed extensively in this thread it is so easily counterable when you live in your space.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12023
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:08:24 -
[3005] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:tlmitf wrote:http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor
In reply to the issues raised in this article about interceptors being used to "troll" alliances, the answer is simple.
The answer is : there is no issue with trollceptors. It was discussed extensively in this thread it is so easily counterable when you live in your space.
And what that really means is that, during your "prime time" you are automatically on the back foot, and have to babysit each and every structure in your alliance.
You'd be spending your peak hours guarding your sov instead of using it. To me, this seems remarkably hostile to small groups without the necessary numbers to have a presence in numerous timezones. (because large groups have more ability to manipulate their prime time to their advantage)
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:10:37 -
[3006] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:tlmitf wrote:http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor
In reply to the issues raised in this article about interceptors being used to "troll" alliances, the answer is simple.
The answer is : there is no issue with trollceptors. It was discussed extensively in this thread it is so easily counterable when you live in your space.
In your mind.
Trollceptor is not there to take SOV the main concerne it is there to promt a groupe to respond to it, and then just fly off and do it somewhere else. But the small brains of high sec do not understand the value and grife and risk aversing. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
828
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:13:44 -
[3007] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Papa Django wrote:tlmitf wrote:http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor
In reply to the issues raised in this article about interceptors being used to "troll" alliances, the answer is simple.
The answer is : there is no issue with trollceptors. It was discussed extensively in this thread it is so easily counterable when you live in your space. And what that really means is that, during your "prime time" you are automatically on the back foot, and have to babysit each and every structure in your alliance. You'd be spending your peak hours guarding your sov instead of using it. To me, this seems remarkably hostile to small groups without the necessary numbers to have a presence in numerous timezones. (because large groups have more ability to manipulate their prime time to their advantage)
Depends, loot fairy odds suggest killing even 2 of these per hour is 80m per hour. And they're not hard to kill, that's pretty solid income.
1) Cerberus 2) MTU 3) ????? 4) PROFIT!!!
Alternatively, we can use the literal armies of cyno alts to guard things if required. |
Draco Argen
Red Sun Industries Moose Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:17:06 -
[3008] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:
EDIT: Another example I stole from another post here is to force setting a disjoint (non-overlapping) "primetime" per constellation. A smaller entity can force everything into their primetime if they hold a small amount of space. However,the larger the amount of space you hold, the more timezone you have to defend against.
I think the current system will drive alliance to form around dense 4-hour timezones. If that happens, those alliances will only be effectively fighting other alliances in the same blocks while just staring at alliances outside their 4-hour primetime with zero ability to impact them in any meaningful way.
I LOVE this consolation idea. 4 hour window is fine for a small alliance. But a super block could do with a bigger challenge. Since there likely to have multiple time zone corps anyway it's reasonable and allows them to let them all have fun and spreads their power more evenly.
Either that our increase the time window for each consolation, but I like the OP idea better. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:29:24 -
[3009] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Sullen Decimus wrote:B) make the entosis link unavailable to interceptors. frigates are still fine because warp bubbles will completely disrupt an attackers ability to literally troll an defender into submission. It is the warp bubble immunity and speed associated with them that is the main problem with the entosis link. Strongly disagree (in case you can't tell lol). This would enable gate camps and border control to keep empty systems protected behind an active defensive perimeter.
Creating defensive perimeters SHOULD be a valid strategy in any kind of defense.
There should be tools to circumvent those - and there ARE already in the whole covops/recon/blackops lineup. It would sharpen the profile of those ships, not a bad thing actually. |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:30:00 -
[3010] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Papa Django wrote:tlmitf wrote:http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor
In reply to the issues raised in this article about interceptors being used to "troll" alliances, the answer is simple.
The answer is : there is no issue with trollceptors. It was discussed extensively in this thread it is so easily counterable when you live in your space. In your mind. Trollceptor is not there to take SOV the main concerne it is there to promt a groupe to respond to it, and then just fly off and do it somewhere else. But the small brains of high sec do not understand the value of grife and risk aversing.
Its not really a bad thing that people who live in an area have to respond to an attacking group, even if they are only griefing. Players new to null will learn fast, and most likely much faster than the one doing the griefing/attacking. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15412
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:30:08 -
[3011] - Quote
afkalt wrote:
I wouldn't have expected for a moment that you did - HOWEVER it cannot be ignored as it is a massive source of NULL income, even if the only way people see it is in SRP.
Ignoring moon goo is like ignoring LPs in high sec.
Also, null PI isn't too shabby.
Point being - I've no problem with a null income rebalance - but it might not go quite the way we expect (or hope).
Its my biggest fear CCP will make the same mistakes again.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
302
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:31:42 -
[3012] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:Kinis Deren wrote:Corey Lean wrote:My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc. Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal? This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine. As long as you think a group of 1k people against 40k can do anything you'll be obliterated as the talis. You're not more than a terrorist group against the big motherf USA of New Eden. Keep on deliring while you stick to npc null, or try to get sov and get obliterated on your way.
I'm pretty sure that under the proposed system MOA would end up with the sov somewhere at some time. However, you seem to assume that we would be crying a river if that sov goes away when the local "civilized empire" gets around to it's usual "hellcamp week" which they do every once in a little while.
It is just a really sharp stick to poke the bear and draw a fight out of it. It is irrelevant if that fight happens when the entity looking for a fight is on the agressing side or on the defending side.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2002
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:35:42 -
[3013] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Papa Django wrote:tlmitf wrote:http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor
In reply to the issues raised in this article about interceptors being used to "troll" alliances, the answer is simple.
The answer is : there is no issue with trollceptors. It was discussed extensively in this thread it is so easily counterable when you live in your space. And what that really means is that, during your "prime time" you are automatically on the back foot, and have to babysit each and every structure in your alliance. You'd be spending your peak hours guarding your sov instead of using it. To me, this seems remarkably hostile to small groups without the necessary numbers to have a presence in numerous timezones. (because large groups have more ability to manipulate their prime time to their advantage)
Nope.. you just need to watch the warnign that EVERYONE in system will receive if someone starts anything!. So you need to babysit NOTHING! You jsut need to have people in systems.
Systems where you have no people during your prime time are systems that you do not deserve to keep without extra " non fun effort". Adjust your demographics or face that some zones will be purged.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2003
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:38:32 -
[3014] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Papa Django wrote:tlmitf wrote:http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor
In reply to the issues raised in this article about interceptors being used to "troll" alliances, the answer is simple.
The answer is : there is no issue with trollceptors. It was discussed extensively in this thread it is so easily counterable when you live in your space. In your mind. Trollceptor is not there to take SOV the main concerne it is there to promt a groupe to respond to it, and then just fly off and do it somewhere else. But the small brains of high sec do not understand the value of grife and risk aversing.
And that is EXACTLY what ccp wants. There is no problem in that. Small skirmishes that will force locals to responde (or later do a much more boring and longer re -recapture period).
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2003
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:40:35 -
[3015] - Quote
Cleanse Serce wrote: Well Excuse our narrow-mindedness Sir.
But i believe that before we got to band over the question "WHY" would a group of player want to live in NullSec, we must answer the question "HOW".
But the answer is " for the same reason they live now"... just to be able to brag about it.... nothing else...
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2003
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:44:25 -
[3016] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Well, missed that part. (God, their layout for that sucks) That's better than I had realized, although still not ideal.
It still mandates babysitting your structures when you should be out using your space and doing things.
No it does not. because if you live in that system they cannto do it in 2 min. It will take HALF AN HOUR!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
828
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:44:49 -
[3017] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:afkalt wrote:
I wouldn't have expected for a moment that you did - HOWEVER it cannot be ignored as it is a massive source of NULL income, even if the only way people see it is in SRP.
Ignoring moon goo is like ignoring LPs in high sec.
Also, null PI isn't too shabby.
Point being - I've no problem with a null income rebalance - but it might not go quite the way we expect (or hope).
Its my biggest fear CCP will make the same mistakes again.
It is not fully CCPs fault, we play a part in how we use the moon income. It is a difficult proposition to resolve - if we deleted moons tomorrow and rolled the income into (for the sakes of picking SOMETHING for this sentence) bounties - what point is there it POS any more? Greatly diminished value.
I fear a lot of people look at null anoms and compare it to high sec missioning in isolation - which is fine and dandy except that there are other sources of income in that space which cannot be ignored in the holistic view - income levels high cannot get anywhere near to.
So - it sucks for people trying to live out there (less generous SRP programs, which people never really consider the savings this presents as "income". I wonder how perceptions would change if the bloc leaders changed things and said "ok, no more SPR - ever. Instead you'll be paid X per month from moon incomes".
It is a very complicated issue - my point was mainly people usually oversimplify it or look at too narrow a focus distorting the image of the entire income of null sec which is something we can't really do.
Anyway, enough derailing from me on this topic |
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:48:28 -
[3018] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Papa Django wrote:tlmitf wrote:http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor
In reply to the issues raised in this article about interceptors being used to "troll" alliances, the answer is simple.
The answer is : there is no issue with trollceptors. It was discussed extensively in this thread it is so easily counterable when you live in your space. In your mind. Trollceptor is not there to take SOV the main concerne it is there to promt a groupe to respond to it, and then just fly off and do it somewhere else. But the small brains of high sec do not understand the value of grife and risk aversing.
You just need to prompt a response proportionnal to the threat.
A single alt cloaky scout is enough to see the threat coming.
If you are occupying your space it is not an issue it is good.
I live in a low class wormhole, we do this every f....ing day. We plant alt cloaky scout on every hole, each time someone detect activation we send a response scaled to the threat. We cancel mining we cancel ratting we cancel hunting. We cancel everything for a single noob probe because it is our space.
If it is a single probe it takes like 5 mins to take it out. If it is a small gang we go in POS, we reship then we fight. If we are outgunned we try some harrass with bombers, etc ...
We are already doing these things. It's not an issue when you are occupying effectively the space you claim. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
792
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:50:17 -
[3019] - Quote
Draco Argen wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:
I think the current system will drive alliance to form around dense 4-hour timezones. If that happens, those alliances will only be effectively fighting other alliances in the same blocks while just staring at alliances outside their 4-hour primetime with zero ability to impact them in any meaningful way.
I LOVE this consolation idea. 4 hour window is fine for a small alliance. But a super block could do with a bigger challenge. Since there likely to have multiple time zone corps anyway it's reasonable and allows them to let them all have fun and spreads their power more evenly. Either that our increase the time window for each consolation, but I like the OP idea better.
I would suggest more of a trade-off approach, rather than punish, punish, punish. Give players the choice of widening the window if they feel they can handle it, in return for benefits to doing so - say match the amount of Prime-time "stretch", with a commesurate stretching of capture time (For example, say a system would be a 10 minute capture against an Alliance with a 4-hour window, make it so having a 6 hour window means the same capture would take 15 minutes, 20 for a 8 hour window, 30 for a 12 four, etc). Obviously, there would need to be a ceiling to this (to prevent Alliances making ludicrous capture times through advancing their indices to the max, then opening up for 24 hours to ramp any capture into a multi-hour torture).
I know the immediate knee-jerk reaction will be that I'm attempting to make life easier for the defender, but consider two same-sized alliances, one purely EU timezone, and one 50/50 split between EU and US (or EU and RUS, or US east coast/west coast). At present, the "pure" time-zone alliance has it easier, as their players are concentrated in their Prime, while the mixed alliance has in reality only got half the population to respond in their Prime, so are more likely to burn that segment out, and be unable to respond as swiftly to threats. By being allowed to stretch their Prime, they make up for the smaller population in any given segment of time by having more time to respond to a threat, and hence making lightening raids less stressful. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:51:45 -
[3020] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:
You just need to prompt a response proportionnal to the threat.
A single alt cloaky scout is enough to see the threat coming.
If you are occupying your space it is not an issue it is good.
I live in a low class wormhole, we do this every f....ing day. We plant alt cloaky scout on every hole, each time someone detect activation we send a response scaled to the threat. We cancel mining we cancel ratting we cancel hunting. We cancel everything for a single noob probe because it is our space.
If it is a single probe it takes like 5 mins to take it out. If it is a small gang we go in POS, we reship then we fight. If we are outgunned we try some harrass with bombers, etc ...
We are already doing these things. It's not an issue when you are occupying effectively the space you claim.
So glad you are awear of things like cynos in non-wh space.
|
|
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:55:01 -
[3021] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Papa Django wrote:
You just need to prompt a response proportionnal to the threat.
A single alt cloaky scout is enough to see the threat coming.
If you are occupying your space it is not an issue it is good.
I live in a low class wormhole, we do this every f....ing day. We plant alt cloaky scout on every hole, each time someone detect activation we send a response scaled to the threat. We cancel mining we cancel ratting we cancel hunting. We cancel everything for a single noob probe because it is our space.
If it is a single probe it takes like 5 mins to take it out. If it is a small gang we go in POS, we reship then we fight. If we are outgunned we try some harrass with bombers, etc ...
We are already doing these things. It's not an issue when you are occupying effectively the space you claim.
So glad you are awear of things like cynos in non-wh space.
This is how things could escalate in nullsec.
Ever heard of jump fatigue ?
In wormhole we don't have 20 jumps range intel. We have J or J+1 max. But we take the risk to engage anyway.
Seems you are scared to risk some ships to defend yourself it is really annoying. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2003
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:56:41 -
[3022] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Papa Django wrote:
You just need to prompt a response proportionnal to the threat.
A single alt cloaky scout is enough to see the threat coming.
If you are occupying your space it is not an issue it is good.
I live in a low class wormhole, we do this every f....ing day. We plant alt cloaky scout on every hole, each time someone detect activation we send a response scaled to the threat. We cancel mining we cancel ratting we cancel hunting. We cancel everything for a single noob probe because it is our space.
If it is a single probe it takes like 5 mins to take it out. If it is a small gang we go in POS, we reship then we fight. If we are outgunned we try some harrass with bombers, etc ...
We are already doing these things. It's not an issue when you are occupying effectively the space you claim.
So glad you are awear of things like cynos in non-wh space.
Seems you miss the point that cynos are still WAY more predictable and trackable sicne the ships have tro travel to a place before cyno in and the cyno ship must enter system before opening cyno. All that while WH do nto get any warnign until few secodns before enemy is there.
0.0 early warning capabilities are tenfold more powerful than wormhole space. So if they can do it, then null people that are playing the game (not playing LOL while waiting to be pinged) can do it as well.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2003
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:59:16 -
[3023] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Draco Argen wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:
I think the current system will drive alliance to form around dense 4-hour timezones. If that happens, those alliances will only be effectively fighting other alliances in the same blocks while just staring at alliances outside their 4-hour primetime with zero ability to impact them in any meaningful way.
I LOVE this consolation idea. 4 hour window is fine for a small alliance. But a super block could do with a bigger challenge. Since there likely to have multiple time zone corps anyway it's reasonable and allows them to let them all have fun and spreads their power more evenly. Either that our increase the time window for each consolation, but I like the OP idea better. I would suggest more of a trade-off approach, rather than punish, punish, punish. Give players the choice of widening the window if they feel they can handle it, in return for benefits to doing so - say match the amount of Prime-time "stretch", with a commesurate stretching of capture time (For example, say a system would be a 10 minute capture against an Alliance with a 4-hour window, make it so having a 6 hour window means the same capture would take 15 minutes, 20 for a 8 hour window, 30 for a 12 hour, etc). Obviously, there would need to be a ceiling to this (to prevent Alliances making ludicrous capture times through advancing their indices to the max, then opening up for 24 hours to ramp any capture into a multi-hour torture), or more likely make it a case of diminishing returns. I know the immediate knee-jerk reaction will be that I'm attempting to make life easier for the defender, but consider two same-sized alliances, one purely EU timezone, and one 50/50 split between EU and US (or EU and RUS, or US east coast/west coast). At present, the "pure" time-zone alliance has it easier, as their players are concentrated in their Prime, while the mixed alliance has in reality only got half the population to respond in their Prime, so are more likely to burn that segment out, and be unable to respond as swiftly to threats. By being allowed to stretch their Prime, they make up for the smaller population in any given segment of time by having more time to respond to a threat, and hence making lightening raids less stressful.
There must be a wide enough minimal time.
But prizes on the system enconomic troughput coudl be given.
Example: standard 4 hours prime.... standard economy. 3 hours prime (I would put this at the VERY VERY minimum) -33% income. 8 hours prime- 50% extra income.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Anthar Thebess
947
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:59:31 -
[3024] - Quote
I think should really think about new SOV <-> NPC space connections, or new NPC stations. This new mechanic can lead to moving big blocks to NPC space and holding sov in specific region becasue they control NPC space.
Look at those NPC systems : - http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind/38G6-L (SOE space) - http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind/U-7RBK (Mordus Space) - http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Geminate/N-K4Q0 (Society) - http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Fountain/Phoenix (Serpentis)
They are in the middle of the Sov space , they contain usually just few or even one station. Big blocks can just move all their assets to few stations , and lock potential staging point from people who are willing to contest their space.
Now when you compare this to Delve NPC space : http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Delve/XPJ1-6 http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Delve/6-UCYU You cannot do it so easily as you have station in almost every npc system.
So there will be always place for some group to move in.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:02:10 -
[3025] - Quote
It's automatically taken for given that the systems with bad truesec rating are not worth living in which I dont agree with. Some of it is definitely worth to hold for smaller groups, but today it serves either as renter space, buffer and/or epeen factor. Maybe ccp will define the fitting requirements for the entosis module so the trollceptor becomes reality. I dont think thats a good idea but I will make use of it. Its a great conflict driver. The first few times the small group of people I fly with will be blobbed when we do that to larger groups, but for the large alliances and coalitions that novelty will quickly go away. After a few weeks of such messages they will be treated like highsec wardecs for these alliances, something they cannot be bothered to respond to. Which is how most of them respond to roams into their mostly empty territory today.
We smaller groups would have to respond and that means we would get visitors because there is content to be had. Much prefer that to someone afk cloaky camping the area I live in, since so many of eve's risk averse and min/maxing players won't take the chance to run anomalies or mine when someone sits in their system. Campers and grieferroams is a chance for pvp by whoever lives there, which is a great thing. Newer groups will learn much more from this than the veteran who only get a miniscule more knowledge and personal skills.
Bombers have great dps and are good small scale alternatives to shooting structures but its really really boring. Shortening of cycles and more possibilities to force conflict is exactly what this game needs. Then ccp needs to develop nullsec income generation somewhat, but its possible for someone to live in null and have other revenue streams than anomalies, exploration, moon mining and mining. Be it highsec missionrunning on alts, market pvp or production. Even stocking local markets and not gouging other players are viable alternatives. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2003
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:11:22 -
[3026] - Quote
Papa Digger wrote:Entosis module mechanics definately need some changes. Fitting - pg 200. No cloak activation while module is active If attacker lose lock on target or fly beyond EL range than Entosis module switch to "empty/warming" cycle. Defender (structure owner) Entosis activate on own structure (station/TCU/IHUB) without "empty/warming" cycle. On command nodes Entosis work same as attacker with "empty" cycle.
Cloackign is already not allowed since you CANNOT LOCK ANYTHING WHILE CLOACKED!!!
No need for the other changes. IF the cycle does not end when the ship get out of range and jsut FAILS at its effect at its end, its enough.
"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
1598
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:12:58 -
[3027] - Quote
Well, the whole trollceptor thing has been effectively demolished as an argument (for those that do not agree, just go back and read why)
The Timing issue needs work, and Fozzie has stated he is open to that, and discussion will take place in another thread. There is a real concern with whether the low truesec systems can support suficient residents, especially as some, when taking into account, increased potential disruption, may have issues with wealth generation to support independant operation,
The thread seems to have reached a sensible point. Good luck to everyone.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12024
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:13:37 -
[3028] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: Cloackign is already not allowed since you CANNOT LOCK ANYTHING WHILE CLOACKED!!!
One wonders then if you can drop your target deliberately, and prematurely end the Entosis cycle and thereby it's debuff, enabling someone to disengage and warp off when they would otherwise be unable.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:14:01 -
[3029] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: 3) Goons will ruin everything. How is that different from any other point in the past few years. The do because they like to.
Actually on point 3 we couldn't ruin everything before, there were limits imposed by timers and EHP. Now we can conceivably make every sov-null system outside of the homeland burn in the space of a month. 12 000 / 3294 = ? Mmh seems you could not. Either you miss the point here or you are just trolling. Miner Hottie wrote: 10) All night shops are open 24 hours a day by rotating their staff. A large multi-timezone organization could do the same for the prime time to make things interesting for different parts of its membership.
11) If I were an Aussie alliance I would hire mercs to drag a late night prime time over to my slot so we could finish it off. Remember prime time is when the battle has to start, not end.
The primetime should be scaled with alliance size. The bigger you are the bigger should be your primetime.
You are not very good at math it would seem, try 40,000/(3,294-665 (CFC space)). We can put 5 inties in every other system in null sec and still have 20,000 for home defense.
As for primetime scaling with alliance size, that rubbish has been disposed of elsewhere.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
792
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:17:29 -
[3030] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote: I would suggest more of a trade-off approach, rather than punish, punish, punish. Give players the choice of widening the window if they feel they can handle it, in return for benefits to doing so - say match the amount of Prime-time "stretch", with a commesurate stretching of capture time (For example, say a system would be a 10 minute capture against an Alliance with a 4-hour window, make it so having a 6 hour window means the same capture would take 15 minutes, 20 for a 8 hour window, 30 for a 12 hour, etc). Obviously, there would need to be a ceiling to this (to prevent Alliances making ludicrous capture times through advancing their indices to the max, then opening up for 24 hours to ramp any capture into a multi-hour torture), or more likely make it a case of diminishing returns.
I know the immediate knee-jerk reaction will be that I'm attempting to make life easier for the defender, but consider two same-sized alliances, one purely EU timezone, and one 50/50 split between EU and US (or EU and RUS, or US east coast/west coast). At present, the "pure" time-zone alliance has it easier, as their players are concentrated in their Prime, while the mixed alliance has in reality only got half the population to respond in their Prime, so are more likely to burn that segment out, and be unable to respond as swiftly to threats. By being allowed to stretch their Prime, they make up for the smaller population in any given segment of time by having more time to respond to a threat, and hence making lightening raids less stressful.
There must be a wide enough minimal time. But prizes on the system enconomic troughput coudl be given. Example: standard 4 hours prime.... standard economy. 3 hours prime (I would put this at the VERY VERY minimum) -33% income. 8 hours prime- 50% extra income.
Increasing value is certainly an alternative, however, my reservation with this is you are rewarding the wrong people. There is often a clear split between PVPers and PVEers, and a situation that makes life more annoying for a PVPer (since they want to be out roaming or brawling, not bug-hunting interceptors) to give benefit to the PVEers is only going to cause resentment ("Why am I having to chase Interceptors for 8 hours so the lazy bum multiboxing drone boats instead of helping out gets more isk. Screw him."). Sure, this might cause the fracturing of large groups that is a desirable aim, but fracturing it along this line would be hazardous to nullsec health (since if all the PVPers go "screw this" and split off and go in to NPC Null, the PVEers have no protection, and go back to highsec). Its certainly an alternative though (and potentially some middle ground that give a little boost in several areas might be the way) |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2004
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:18:33 -
[3031] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: Cloackign is already not allowed since you CANNOT LOCK ANYTHING WHILE CLOACKED!!!
One wonders then if you can drop your target deliberately, and prematurely end the Entosis cycle and thereby it's debuff, enabling someone to disengage and warp off when they would otherwise be unable.
That is NOT how TARGETED modules work. When you lose the lock on a target that you were applying a targeted module the cycle of the module does nto END IMMEDIATELY! Check it with a salvager for example. The effect is just checked at the end. I am pretty sure the debuffs will end only when the CYCLE time ends.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2004
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:19:37 -
[3032] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Papa Django wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: 3) Goons will ruin everything. How is that different from any other point in the past few years. The do because they like to.
Actually on point 3 we couldn't ruin everything before, there were limits imposed by timers and EHP. Now we can conceivably make every sov-null system outside of the homeland burn in the space of a month. 12 000 / 3294 = ? Mmh seems you could not. Either you miss the point here or you are just trolling. Miner Hottie wrote: 10) All night shops are open 24 hours a day by rotating their staff. A large multi-timezone organization could do the same for the prime time to make things interesting for different parts of its membership.
11) If I were an Aussie alliance I would hire mercs to drag a late night prime time over to my slot so we could finish it off. Remember prime time is when the battle has to start, not end.
The primetime should be scaled with alliance size. The bigger you are the bigger should be your primetime. You are not very good at math it would seem, try 40,000/(3,294-665 (CFC space)). We can put 5 inties in every other system in null sec and still have 20,000 for home defense. As for primetime scaling with alliance size, that rubbish has been disposed of elsewhere.
LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
792
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:20:17 -
[3033] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well, the whole trollceptor thing has been effectively demolished.... Only in the heads of those who don't want to hear about it. How about leaving it to the Devs to decide whether its a problem or not, rather than the rather biased views of posters?
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2004
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:20:57 -
[3034] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote: I would suggest more of a trade-off approach, rather than punish, punish, punish. Give players the choice of widening the window if they feel they can handle it, in return for benefits to doing so - say match the amount of Prime-time "stretch", with a commesurate stretching of capture time (For example, say a system would be a 10 minute capture against an Alliance with a 4-hour window, make it so having a 6 hour window means the same capture would take 15 minutes, 20 for a 8 hour window, 30 for a 12 hour, etc). Obviously, there would need to be a ceiling to this (to prevent Alliances making ludicrous capture times through advancing their indices to the max, then opening up for 24 hours to ramp any capture into a multi-hour torture), or more likely make it a case of diminishing returns.
I know the immediate knee-jerk reaction will be that I'm attempting to make life easier for the defender, but consider two same-sized alliances, one purely EU timezone, and one 50/50 split between EU and US (or EU and RUS, or US east coast/west coast). At present, the "pure" time-zone alliance has it easier, as their players are concentrated in their Prime, while the mixed alliance has in reality only got half the population to respond in their Prime, so are more likely to burn that segment out, and be unable to respond as swiftly to threats. By being allowed to stretch their Prime, they make up for the smaller population in any given segment of time by having more time to respond to a threat, and hence making lightening raids less stressful.
There must be a wide enough minimal time. But prizes on the system enconomic troughput coudl be given. Example: standard 4 hours prime.... standard economy. 3 hours prime (I would put this at the VERY VERY minimum) -33% income. 8 hours prime- 50% extra income. Increasing value is certainly an alternative, however, my reservation with this is you are rewarding the wrong people. There is often a clear split between PVPers and PVEers, and a situation that makes life more annoying for a PVPer (since they want to be out roaming or brawling, not bug-hunting interceptors) to give benefit to the PVEers is only going to cause resentment ("Why am I having to chase Interceptors for 8 hours so the lazy bum multiboxing drone boats instead of helping out gets more isk. Screw him."). Sure, this might cause the fracturing of large groups that is a desirable aim, but fracturing it along this line would be hazardous to nullsec health (since if all the PVPers go "screw this" and split off and go in to NPC Null, the PVEers have no protection, and go back to highsec). Its certainly an alternative though (and potentially some middle ground that give a little boost in several areas might be the way)
Null sec alliances do not work like that. The COMMAND of the alliance will decide. and they will use the money from the taxes to help the alliance. Reinburse ships... etc... That is an issue for the alliance organization to solve.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:23:25 -
[3035] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Papa Django wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: 3) Goons will ruin everything. How is that different from any other point in the past few years. The do because they like to.
Actually on point 3 we couldn't ruin everything before, there were limits imposed by timers and EHP. Now we can conceivably make every sov-null system outside of the homeland burn in the space of a month. 12 000 / 3294 = ? Mmh seems you could not. Either you miss the point here or you are just trolling. Miner Hottie wrote: 10) All night shops are open 24 hours a day by rotating their staff. A large multi-timezone organization could do the same for the prime time to make things interesting for different parts of its membership.
11) If I were an Aussie alliance I would hire mercs to drag a late night prime time over to my slot so we could finish it off. Remember prime time is when the battle has to start, not end.
The primetime should be scaled with alliance size. The bigger you are the bigger should be your primetime. You are not very good at math it would seem, try 40,000/(3,294-665 (CFC space)). We can put 5 inties in every other system in null sec and still have 20,000 for home defense. As for primetime scaling with alliance size, that rubbish has been disposed of elsewhere.
This would also mean there are actually 40K PLAYERS in CFC, and the answer is that there isnt. I would like to see all players multiboxing all their alts for both these things. It would be killmail farming heaven for everyone else, unless they all have 4-10 monitors each.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
792
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:24:38 -
[3036] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Entosis module mechanics definately need some changes. Fitting - pg 200. No cloak activation while module is active
Cloackign is already not allowed since you CANNOT LOCK ANYTHING WHILE CLOACKED!!!
Notably, you aren't supposed to be able to MWD while cloaked, yet clever use of activation times makes the Cloak-MWD trick a quite familiar and widely used tactic. There is certainly nothing wrong with highlighting where a potential carelessness in coding could create a hilariously stupid bug.
|
Rex Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:25:14 -
[3037] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote: I would suggest more of a trade-off approach, rather than punish, punish, punish. Give players the choice of widening the window if they feel they can handle it, in return for benefits to doing so - say match the amount of Prime-time "stretch", with a commesurate stretching of capture time (For example, say a system would be a 10 minute capture against an Alliance with a 4-hour window, make it so having a 6 hour window means the same capture would take 15 minutes, 20 for a 8 hour window, 30 for a 12 hour, etc). Obviously, there would need to be a ceiling to this (to prevent Alliances making ludicrous capture times through advancing their indices to the max, then opening up for 24 hours to ramp any capture into a multi-hour torture), or more likely make it a case of diminishing returns.
I know the immediate knee-jerk reaction will be that I'm attempting to make life easier for the defender, but consider two same-sized alliances, one purely EU timezone, and one 50/50 split between EU and US (or EU and RUS, or US east coast/west coast). At present, the "pure" time-zone alliance has it easier, as their players are concentrated in their Prime, while the mixed alliance has in reality only got half the population to respond in their Prime, so are more likely to burn that segment out, and be unable to respond as swiftly to threats. By being allowed to stretch their Prime, they make up for the smaller population in any given segment of time by having more time to respond to a threat, and hence making lightening raids less stressful.
There must be a wide enough minimal time. But prizes on the system enconomic troughput coudl be given. Example: standard 4 hours prime.... standard economy. 3 hours prime (I would put this at the VERY VERY minimum) -33% income. 8 hours prime- 50% extra income. Increasing value is certainly an alternative, however, my reservation with this is you are rewarding the wrong people. There is often a clear split between PVPers and PVEers, and a situation that makes life more annoying for a PVPer (since they want to be out roaming or brawling, not bug-hunting interceptors) to give benefit to the PVEers is only going to cause resentment ("Why am I having to chase Interceptors for 8 hours so the lazy bum multiboxing drone boats instead of helping out gets more isk. Screw him."). Sure, this might cause the fracturing of large groups that is a desirable aim, but fracturing it along this line would be hazardous to nullsec health (since if all the PVPers go "screw this" and split off and go in to NPC Null, the PVEers have no protection, and go back to highsec). Its certainly an alternative though (and potentially some middle ground that give a little boost in several areas might be the way)
You come across as someone who thinks he knows how null sec alliances work while in reality you don't. |
Papa Digger
OEG The Gorgon Empire
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:27:47 -
[3038] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Cloackign is already not allowed since you CANNOT LOCK ANYTHING WHILE CLOACKED!!!
No need for the other changes. IF the cycle does not end when the ship get out of range and jsut FAILS at its effect at its end, its enough. If you allow cloack, you'll get 100500 Uncatchable Joe's. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:28:41 -
[3039] - Quote
Damned if I'm going to read 150 pages. Has anyone addressed how caps and supers will play into all of this yet? I know you can make a theoretical argument that every serious fight will escalate, but I don't see a necessary escalation path, given the mechanics as they have been described here.
Will caps and supers only be necessary for contesting moons after this patch? |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
793
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:29:26 -
[3040] - Quote
Rex Crendraven wrote: You come across as someone who thinks he knows how null sec alliances work while in reality you don't.
You are correct, my knowledge of the inner workings of the mighty sov-holding Federal Navy Academy is somewhat limited.
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
828
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:31:38 -
[3041] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well, the whole trollceptor thing has been effectively demolished.... Only in the heads of those who don't want to hear about it. How about leaving it to the Devs to decide whether its a problem or not, rather than the rather biased views of posters?
On the contrary, I cannot wait to farm the kills.
A 100m, self tackling 1800 EHP ship? Yeah, that is going to have a VeryBadTimeGäó indeed.
Sure, some might burn off grid, maybe. But a bunch are gonna die hard. |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:34:04 -
[3042] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Damned if I'm going to read 150 pages. Has anyone addressed how caps and supers will play into all of this yet? I know you can make a theoretical argument that every serious fight will escalate, but I don't see a necessary escalation path, given the mechanics as they have been described here.
Will caps and supers only be necessary for contesting moons after this patch?
Towards structures like poco's and pos maybe. Still really good ships to kill other capitals with. And in the case of triage carriers as support for subcap fleets. Wouldnt mind seeing more oldschool BS and BC fleets (no, you cannot still cannot bring a Drake to an armor fleet and expect logi to rep you). |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:36:46 -
[3043] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.
I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Rex Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:39:09 -
[3044] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Rex Crendraven wrote: You come across as someone who thinks he knows how null sec alliances work while in reality you don't.
You are correct, my knowledge of the inner workings of the mighty sov-holding Federal Navy Academy is somewhat limited.
Don't judge a player by his ALTs. |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:45:02 -
[3045] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Damned if I'm going to read 150 pages. Has anyone addressed how caps and supers will play into all of this yet? I know you can make a theoretical argument that every serious fight will escalate, but I don't see a necessary escalation path, given the mechanics as they have been described here.
Will caps and supers only be necessary for contesting moons after this patch?
I've thought about this and I think that the most they will contribute will be a massive HP pool or aid in escalations, I hope that they find a better role for ships bigger that BCs. Maybe some type of bonus to the length of the E-link or something because if we continue down this path it seems to be subcaps online.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:47:57 -
[3046] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:You mentioned that the Entosis link will have low fitting requirements, and not disable propulsion while active.
What is there to prevent massive hordes of T2 entosis fitted interceptors from completely swarming an area and putting entosis links on everything?
All the ceptor has to do is stay within a 250km bubble of the objective, and even if hostiles show up, you just have to MWD around for 2 minutes. If the enemy is trying to entosis your objective, do the same.
What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours? You've made sov easier to take, but that works both ways.
Any small group that slights a big group can expect all their space reinforced in less than 30 minutes. By interceptors.
So the future of Sov warfare is inteceptor with sov lasers, slippery petes to kill interceptors, and absolutely no fleet on fleet fighting.
Make the Entosis Link a bastion/siege module. Immobile, but with defensive bonuses. Fitting requirements for battlecruiser and above.
Welcome hordes of triple plated triple repped abaddons... battleship combat ensues.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12030
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:51:53 -
[3047] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.
"nobody will ever have the kind of resources and organization to just make Titans whenever they feel like it. We're safe leaving it broken under the assumption that no one will ever pull it off."
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2005
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:52:05 -
[3048] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Entosis module mechanics definately need some changes. Fitting - pg 200. No cloak activation while module is active
Cloackign is already not allowed since you CANNOT LOCK ANYTHING WHILE CLOACKED!!! Notably, you aren't supposed to be able to MWD while cloaked, yet clever use of activation times makes the Cloak-MWD trick a quite familiar and widely used tactic. There is certainly nothing wrong with highlighting where a potential carelessness in coding could create a hilariously stupid bug.
And that EXACT same behavior is what will prevent the abuse of the cloak. Because the active module effects do not END until the end of the cycle. Therefore the SHIP will NOT be able to stop the cycle by just pulsing a cloak.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:52:48 -
[3049] - Quote
Like this change, what I like a lot is that CCP is willing to change as we go. No doubt there will be loopholes and other issues that need balancing and need to be adressed.
One issue though: combine the jump fatigue with the prime time: make prime time related to a region. So if an alliance picks prime time for there sov in region A, they cannot pick the same time in region B. This means they'll have to move around to defend their big empire. And only when they have sov in their seventh region, they can have overlapping prime time.
This'll give larger alliance a way to split their realm into the different timezones they no doubt posses. And will prevent small roaming groups from holding down sov in multiple regions. Sure they might be able to capture it, but not hold it. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2005
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:53:11 -
[3050] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.
"nobody will ever have the kind of resources and organization to just make Titans whenever they feel like it. We're safe leaving it broken under the assumption that no one will ever pull it off."
Focusing resources is MUCH MUCH easier than keeping 20 k people doign somethign incredbly boring 4 hours per day every day for months.
If you are able to make 20 K peopel WORK 4 hours per day without payment.. dude.. you would be the riuchest businnes man in THE WORLD!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2005
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:54:10 -
[3051] - Quote
Panther X wrote:Angry Mustache wrote:You mentioned that the Entosis link will have low fitting requirements, and not disable propulsion while active.
What is there to prevent massive hordes of T2 entosis fitted interceptors from completely swarming an area and putting entosis links on everything?
All the ceptor has to do is stay within a 250km bubble of the objective, and even if hostiles show up, you just have to MWD around for 2 minutes. If the enemy is trying to entosis your objective, do the same.
What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours? You've made sov easier to take, but that works both ways.
Any small group that slights a big group can expect all their space reinforced in less than 30 minutes. By interceptors.
So the future of Sov warfare is inteceptor with sov lasers, slippery petes to kill interceptors, and absolutely no fleet on fleet fighting. Make the Entosis Link a bastion/siege module. Immobile, but with defensive bonuses. Fitting requirements for battlecruiser and above. Welcome hordes of triple plated triple repped abaddons... battleship combat ensues.
its called MARAUDER with an entosis link :P
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Anthar Thebess
948
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:57:21 -
[3052] - Quote
Can not "contained" sansha incursion drop sov ? If you did not care to stop the incursion ....
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
796
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:59:37 -
[3053] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month. I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina.
It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive.
And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me. |
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:59:41 -
[3054] - Quote
Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V. |
Anthar Thebess
948
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:06:35 -
[3055] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V. No. Look for a WH and then make freighter transport ops.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2008
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:07:11 -
[3056] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month. I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina. It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive. And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me.
But if you try to keep that commitment for too long in a spread and non focused way you LOOSE that cohesion.
That is not MY prediction, that is known for centuries from generals experience on keeping an army cohesion for long engagements. That have been later re discovered by managers at most companies around the world. Its human nature. If you keep the decentralized into non focused tasks for too long you LOSE the capability of focusing when you need it.
So if CFC TRIES to do that .. in haklf a year they will lose a LOT of their power. But your leadership is nto dumb enough to do that.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:09:57 -
[3057] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V.
Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock. |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:11:55 -
[3058] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month. I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina. It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive. And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me. But if you try to keep that commitment for too long in a spread and non focused way you LOOSE that cohesion. That is not MY prediction, that is known for centuries from generals experience on keeping an army cohesion for long engagements. That have been later re discovered by managers at most companies around the world. Its human nature. If you keep the decentralized into non focused tasks for too long you LOSE the capability of focusing when you need it. So if CFC TRIES to do that .. in haklf a year they will lose a LOT of their power. But your leadership is nto dumb enough to do that.
It wouldn't take half a year. It would talk a single six week patch cycle for it to be made clear how hilariously broken things are. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:13:14 -
[3059] - Quote
Besides the complaint that the new system will be open to trolls (which may or may not be adressed) the question still remains where the place of capitals or supers will be in the new meta.
So how about this:
Create a new structure, the Super-Hub. Only one can be set up per constellation.
- increases the effect of indices of selected iHubs in the constellation (owner could chose which to link) - this might or might not include the entosys link multiplier effect for those iHubs - can only be affected by entosys links of CAPITAL ships
ONLY if you want that to be even more of a conflict driver: - also allow to select iHubs to decrease the effect for
P.S. Also, the idea someone brought up of randomly distributing prime time windows over constellation was largely ignored. IMO that's a brilliant idea, since it (randomly) determines the value of a constellation for a lot of alliances - especially generating a different value for people from different timezones. |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
119
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:14:15 -
[3060] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month. I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina. It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive. And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me.
I have no doubt in what you have said but realistically it probably won't happen because herding over a thousand players for more than a moth just to troll a system pushes the boundary, yeah a few hundred here and there and maybe a week or two at a time but I seriously doubt that even GSF has the pull to keep its numbers high and the attrition low for more that a month of boring, tedious play, especially if they are having to do it on multiple alts, lets face the facts, there aren't as many GSF individual players are there are members. How many play in BRAVE just to have more fun/hour?
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:15:21 -
[3061] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Besides the complaint that the new system will be open to trolls (which may or may not be adressed) the question still remains where the place of capitals or supers will be in the new meta.
So how about this:
Create a new structure, the Super-Hub. Only one can be set up per constellation.
- increases the effect of indices of selected iHubs in the constellation (owner could chose which to link) - this might or might not include the entosys link multiplier effect for those iHubs - can only be affected by entosys links of CAPITAL ships
ONLY if you want that to be even more of a conflict driver: - also allow to select iHubs to decrease the effect for
P.S. Also, the idea someone brought up of randomly distributing prime time windows over constellation was largely ignored. IMO that's a brilliant idea, since it (randomly) determines the value of a constellation for a lot of alliances - especially generating a different value for people from different timezones.
Why on earth do you actually WANT to shoot structures in anything. Trust me, after the first time in a super shooting structures its really as boring as shooting structures in anything. |
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:22:23 -
[3062] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: No. Look for a WH and then make freighter transport ops.
Done that over 1000 times. So what? Don`t you see the difference betwen dynamics of structure destruction today and after patch? Or you prefer to add some WH spawn intensity?
Dark Spite wrote:Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock. Didn't know that so stupid things still exist. |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:22:26 -
[3063] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Lavayar wrote:Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V. Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock. Obviously it would also have to be cheaper. Alternatively, the entosys link could only disable an iHub and you'd still have to shoot it, to destroy it. Would obviously mean there has to be an activity mode besides 'online' for iHubs, for this to work, mutually exclusive between all anchored and online iHubs in a system.
Copied from the dev blog:
In this Sovereignty update, the Entosis Link will be used for the following tasks (details later in this blog):
Activating newly deployed Territorial Claim Units and Infrastructure Hubs Reinforcing Territorial Claim Units, Infrastructure Hubs and Outposts during their vulnerability period Disabling and Enabling Station Services Capturing Command Nodes during Sovereignty capture events
I take this to mean you would still have to shoot the structure after reinforcing it. Entosis link isnt a structure doomsday device. |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:25:07 -
[3064] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock. Didn't know that so stupid things still exist.
It does, just like this guy https://zkillboard.com/character/90037483/ |
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:27:08 -
[3065] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:
I take this to mean you would still have to shoot the structure after reinforcing it. Entosis link isnt a structure doomsday device.
Yes it is. Just look at the example.
Quote: In our example case, let's say Flameburst Coalition manages to catch the majority of the Blackhawk fleet in some bubbles and decimates their force, allowing them to win the first capture event for the RIT station and the capture event for the RIT IHub. The IHub explodes, allowing anyone to place a new replacement hub.
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:28:10 -
[3066] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Lavayar wrote:Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V. Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock. Obviously it would also have to be cheaper. Alternatively, the entosys link could only disable an iHub and you'd still have to shoot it, to destroy it. Would obviously mean there has to be an activity mode besides 'online' for iHubs, for this to work, mutually exclusive between all anchored and online iHubs in a system. Copied from the dev blog: In this Sovereignty update, the Entosis Link will be used for the following tasks (details later in this blog): Activating newly deployed Territorial Claim Units and Infrastructure Hubs Reinforcing Territorial Claim Units, Infrastructure Hubs and Outposts during their vulnerability periodDisabling and Enabling Station Services Capturing Command Nodes during Sovereignty capture events I take this to mean you would still have to shoot the structure after reinforcing it. Entosis link isnt a structure doomsday device.
You have to read further.
The command node capturing is, where TCU and iHUB explode, if the aggressor wins.
EDIT: From the devblog: If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures. |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:29:14 -
[3067] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Finally caught up with the thread. :)
Hey folks, thanks for the feedback so far
The short version:
"we get that there is a lot of feedback, we also get that even now there's the start of major perception problems, we also get that there's not a lot of precedent for trust, but it's gonna be alright.
We would like everyone to please talk and discuss more, but for the sakes of discussion not getting in the way of plans moving ahead slowly as planned anyway we will be following the recommendations of some Community Management and Customer Interaction studies from last year and splitting up discussion paths while stimulating the development of those paths increasingly towards the detail level, away from thinking about bigger pictures. Just look at these one or two itty bitty little gritty things and focus all your energy on that.
Rest assured we take you seriously, just continue expending energy on theorycrafting and discussions but please follow these trenches so you guys don't look at what the field is shaping up to be cuz that's not what we want to see as our show has to go on. Got to end up soon with a nicely wrapped low maintenance product venture for the big boys after all. Grand plans got to be grand, but at least they've realised it comes at a price."
Don't get me wrong, in spite of the above I actually do *get* the objectives set, but I also understand the conditions required for them, and the room and resources you've got to come up with a working system within the guidelines of product development.
Let me just point out that within closed systems any top down design / development approach only ever results in internal dynamics finding and reinforcing status quo. If you want something else, it'll have to be rooted in behavioural bottom up developments - which is not compatible with mechanical design focus required to end up meeting the goals set by venture development.
The irony is that top down systems like this won't meet those goals by default, because in spite of innate extensibility and an initial period of adaptation (which is different from shake up) you will see that the behavioural aspects of group dynamics have not been changed (logically, since that's a bottom up dynamic, not top down) so after a little while you end up playing (again) for time till the next system ends up in a status quo post ante (as it's called). Leaving you to throw away all the work having to once again come up with a new system, since nothing you can come up with under top down constraints can truly address rooted behavioural triggers.
I appreciate the efforts, and I understand the challanges, but you base too much in data analyses innately vulnerable to confirmation bias, you don't take the role of CCP as part of the dynamic as inclusive to r&d requirements, and while they are unstandable there are things in product development which are simply incompatible with venture development as long as the conviction reigns that every part and the product as a whole can be wrapped up efficiently and passed on with shiny flags of low maintenance, advanced content development tools, built-in and highly flexible extensibility, and so forth.
If you look carefully, you can already see several sets of perception problems taking shape. Such problems aren't challenges, since there never is any solution to them but replacing the entirety of affected customers in a given feature or playstyle niche, and even then there's the issue of eve's stories lingering on in having a life of their own. They still create perception trends that dwarf every marketing effort of the pas decade. You can only prevent perception problems happening in the first place, and let's be honest, CCP does not have a grand track record in this. That's not a stab at people who do the real work, they tend to figure these things out, but this is one of those things where there has always been a grand canyon of a divide between that lot in the rooms upstairs beyond the cantina and the real world. EVE the game is a result of hard work, the venture - heck even the board agreed with that last year - has had a disproportional amount of luck in surviving a consistant strain of bad decisions having consequences for product level development. Each and every time rooted in avoidable perception problems.
You who do actual work have done a lot of hard work, but it is visible in these two devblogs that it rests on a focus which sets guided objectives within constraints. Understandable, but that doesn't make it the better approach - in truth it's an approach which never serves the venture as expected, wished, or envisioned to.
But I get it, once people figure it out - just like the last bunch of times - it ends up with that ancient question of "what to do about it" and that recent sense of "so if we do X what will that mean for me here", but that's an entirely different debate. In all these years though I've yet to see meaningful advocacy against the grand canyon upstairs. Just like people are getting smarter in managing customers, so they are getting wiser at guiding their own teams. It's about getting down in the detail level.
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:31:07 -
[3068] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:Dark Spite wrote:
I take this to mean you would still have to shoot the structure after reinforcing it. Entosis link isnt a structure doomsday device.
Yes it is. Just look at the example. Quote: In our example case, let's say Flameburst Coalition manages to catch the majority of the Blackhawk fleet in some bubbles and decimates their force, allowing them to win the first capture event for the RIT station and the capture event for the RIT IHub. The IHub explodes, allowing anyone to place a new replacement hub.
Great, less structure shooting, didnt remember that part of the blog. But this only means entosis link in this context replaces SBU's as a method of reinforcing. After reinforcing the groups still have to fight and remain active in order to make the i-hub/TCU's blow up. With all effects on the explosion should be as pretty as always. |
Blackfangg
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:33:35 -
[3069] - Quote
So I'm writing this because I feel as if the people posting about how this is horrible didn't read the actual post. I'm led to assume this because a lot of the Negatives they gave are not right/based on fact.
Lets cover the common complaints: #1 The TimeZone issue: While it is true that AU and EU with have a harder time accomplishing the INITIAL attack, the period after reinforcement will still let Off-TZ players/corps/alliances help their friends/fight for their space, especially in max-system index space. This is due to the fact that the command nodes spawn directly after reinforcement ends, but only spawns 5 nodes (Ten are needed to win) Now if your system is lived-in and has max index then it will take 40mins for one timer. After each node is captured another will spawn somewhere else, this means that even if an Alliance could somehow have people waiting in the exact locations the nodes would spawn (which is impossible) it would still take 1 hour and 20mins to win the event. Considering for a moment that this isnt possible though allows us to use a more rational example of how it will play out.
Your alliance has a 2:00-6:00 GMT Primetime (So AU players). An enemy reinforces your Ihub and TCU. Your reinforcement ends at 5:00 GMT, meaning your guys in EU (+0-+2 GMT) probably wont be able to help out right away. Fighting at the nodes begins and you lose the first node after a large fight (The other nodes have small fights raging one, therefore no progress has been made on them) This will take at least 40 mins AFTER your fleet has lost the fight (Two ELinks cant be used at the same time, therefore the control slider doesn't move) So the first big fight ends and they capture the first node at 5:45 GMT (right before the end of your TZ) Since the fight hasn't been determined it continues after your TZ till someone wins. Now things happen more quickly.
Your node capture time - 10mins / Enemy capture time - 40mins (due to index levels) First node (5:45) Enemy - 1 You - 0 Second node (6:35) Enemy - 2 You - 0 Third node (7:40) Enemy - 3 You- 0 Fourth node (8:00) Enemy -4 You - 0 Fifth node (8:45) Enemy - 5 You - 0 Sixth Node (8:45) Enemy - 5 You - 1 (You managed to win a battle with a smaller force away from the main fleet.) Seventh Node (9:45) Enemy - 5 You - 2 (Again, you chose to fight away from the main fleet surrendering one to capture one) Eighth Node (10:10) Enemy - 6 You - 1 (Its at this point that your corp is getting to the end of its TZ and players are logging off) Ninth Node (11:00) Enemy - 7 You - 2 (It looks like you might lose this system, your running out of players!) Tenth Node (12:00) Enemy 7 You - 3 (YAY! Your EU brethren have logged in and come to save the day)
Ofcourse this is highly theoretical and infact you coud lose your sov in a mere 2 hours or so without fighting, or by losing too much. But remember, if they send a large fleet to start capping a node, then just leave, it will take them 40mins for that one while your medium sized fleet rushes around fighting the little guerrilla fleets, takeing the nodes in 10mins each. If you both have equal fleets (1000) but u split 250 to 4 different nodes while thier 1000 captures one, you'll win in minutes! My belief is that fights wil go on for mulitple days sometimes(As they have in the past), thereby allowing cross TZ play.
#2: No Benefits to Sov: There are so many more ISK opportunity's in Null than in High, I guess I don't understand why this is a thing. I personally made A LOT more by ratting/mining in Null than I ever made from L4s in HighSec. Also your in a MUCH safer place if you have friends to call in to back you up against some cloaky ratter killer. Ive died more in High Sec than Null (While making ISK) so the Risk vs Reward is amazingly onesided towards Reward. In my experience I've lost one ratting Tengu for every 4-6Bil I make. Maybe im just not seeing what they mean, If your index is high then there are plenty of Sites/Belts/Anoms for everyone, that to me is a benefit. Also having moons is pretty dope, as well as JBs, and abilities to restrict docking rights.
#3 Punks in Intys etc that try to ninja and just **** you off: Really? Again, did you read it? "Requires a target lock on the structure." This means that an Inty will have to remain within 127km (Maximum Targeting Range of a Crow with 3x Sebos, 3x SigAmps, 1 MWD/AB, Targetting Rigs) So if I ever saw one I'd laugh and Undock my InstaNado and bye bye Inty. I can get a Harpy to 231km with the same fit, but its pointless, you wouldnt be able to keep that link up for very long once the "Someones captureing "blahblah") ping goes out. 40mins in a lived in system? forget about it. So primarily your 250km ELinkers would all be Cruiser or larger, and slow enough to be caught by an inty, tackled/webbed, and killed. Rememeber the T2 ones cost 80mil, thats more than most T1 Cruisers, so I doubt people will just be throwing them away like that. BUT this is EVE so i guess you should expect it a few times.
#4 Ships with Utility Highs always will be preferred: Your whole fleet doesnt need to bring Elinks already fitted, Just have people carry them in their cargo bays and have a fleet member drop a mobile depot if they need to switch them out. Since one on either side being activated cancels the other out, only one person would realistically need a Link (and he would just be a crazy tanked faction BS or something) and then use the mobile depot for another one if he dies.
#5 This makes Sov too hard to hold: How? Your capture time = x2 to x4 less than your attacker if you actually use the system your in, and if you don't you don't deserve it. Therefore if they are not SUPER organized (Which is extremely hard for a lot of big alliances even) then you can cap 2-3 for thier one
Not sure how this will all work out, but atleast ccp are trying something new. Maybe im wrong about all this!
BlackFangg |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
796
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:39:38 -
[3070] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote: It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive.
And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me.
But if you try to keep that commitment for too long in a spread and non focused way you LOOSE that cohesion. That is not MY prediction, that is known for centuries from generals experience on keeping an army cohesion for long engagements. That have been later re discovered by managers at most companies around the world. Its human nature. If you keep the decentralized into non focused tasks for too long you LOSE the capability of focusing when you need it. So if CFC TRIES to do that .. in haklf a year they will lose a LOT of their power. But your leadership is nto dumb enough to do that.
I've made a couple of runs at writing a reply, but ultimately, people who haven't seen or experienced how we operate, wont get it no matter how I explain. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as from the inside, I see it an entirely possible (and desirable) event.
(I am just picturing the entire Verite sov-map going black, as it someone turned off the lights. That thought alone should worry people).
|
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:42:14 -
[3071] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
I've made a couple of runs at writing a reply, but ultimately, people who haven't seen or experienced how we operate, wont get it no matter how I explain. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as from the inside, I see it an entirely possible (and desirable) event.
(I am just picturing the entire Verite sov-map going black, as it someone turned off the lights. That thought alone should worry people).
I dont doubt you can pull of the reinforcement phase for a long time, but getting CFC to respond to all timers created everywhere will be tricky. Even for you. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
702
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:52:02 -
[3072] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
I've made a couple of runs at writing a reply, but ultimately, people who haven't seen or experienced how we operate, wont get it no matter how I explain. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as from the inside, I see it an entirely possible (and desirable) event.
(I am just picturing the entire Verite sov-map going black, as it someone turned off the lights. That thought alone should worry people).
I dont doubt you can pull of the reinforcement phase for a long time, but getting CFC to respond to all timers created everywhere will be tricky. Even for you.
In fact all he proves with that comment is that people who do not live in the space do not deserve to own it, does not worry me at all, in fact I welcome it, because afterwards is when the fun starts..., in other words when people move into systems that they want to hold, and I am still wondering just how easy they will find it when they find the TCU sitting next to a death star POS well away from their cap fleets. Yes they could do it, with a big enough subcap fleet to deal with a large POS, its not difficult, but that is a lot more effort then Trollceptors.
As for peoples IHUB's the ones that really matter will be defended so his interceptor concept will just die.
But CFC please do this so I don't have to bother reinforcing the system I want
Ella's Snack bar
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
6128
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:12:37 -
[3073] - Quote
Just make the Entosis Link a Command Link with all associated restrictions.
No more trollceptors. Got to use T3s for that.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:16:37 -
[3074] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Just make the Entosis Link a Command Link with all associated restrictions.
No more trollceptors. Got to use T3s for that. I think battleship is fine candidate for this purpose. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
830
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:16:46 -
[3075] - Quote
Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3986
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:19:26 -
[3076] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:25:40 -
[3077] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? I'm not scared. It's just question of risk/reward. Where on one hand 750 kk for iHub and on the other 20kk for interceptor. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
834
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:30:33 -
[3078] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? I'm not scared. It's just question of risk/reward. Where on one hand 750 kk for iHub and on the other 20 kk for interceptor.
The T2 inty costs 100m.
It can be stopped by a simple punisher with a T1 link.
Do you think having an 80m mod on a ship with <2k EHP which CANNOT WARP OFF isn't a risk?
Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of?
These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space.
Edit: Make the mod have a 100% drop rate on death. People will be falling over themselves to hunt these. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
181
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:39:17 -
[3079] - Quote
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:... paplink requirements
Never. Ever. Again.
Everytime someone says the word paplink out loud I break whatever I'm holding.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1600
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:40:29 -
[3080] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote: Timers and counters are the only way to do it and it has to be accessible to everyone or we are back to the problem we're in now.
And like I said above. Setting the bar at 2 minutes of time and a 100 million isk module is setting the bar to o low. Its two minutes to start to RF the structure. Theres another 10-30 minutes for the defender to respond. pretty much everyone understands this, and besides, this is only the odd few, who still haven't grasped the essentials. They will just have to catch up later.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:47:02 -
[3081] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
277
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:50:39 -
[3082] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late. That's where you just use a defensive link on ANY other ship at zero - preferably one with a nice web bonus - then place bets on how many 100m killmails each one of you can get :) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
837
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:51:28 -
[3083] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late.
That's a more valid concern.
Perhaps a color option for the overview? Or an icon a-la scram/webs/ewar? |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:53:10 -
[3084] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late.
So basically your answer to that 100M trollceptor is to bring a 200M+ cerberus ..unless of course, there are a few more names in local, which may or may not be a support fleet waiting for you just to do so? |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1600
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:54:37 -
[3085] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late. That's where you just use a defensive link on ANY other ship at zero - preferably one with a nice web bonus - then place bets on how many 100m killmails each one of you can get :) Nice to see, how imaginative people are becoming in dealing with the pre reinforcement stage, in reality, for occupied systems, they will be tested and passed over, in most circumstances in the search for empty, easy systems.
If they are occupied, then if someone wants to conquer you, interceptors, are not going to be the tool of choice, a larger force will burst through or cyno past the gatecamps, and bring full scale warfare down upon your head.
Interceptors? Nothing but scouts with the ability to start the process of robbing systems from the lazy and absent.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:05:33 -
[3086] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Seven Koskanaiken wrote:... paplink requirements Never. Ever. Again. Everytime someone says the word paplink out loud I break whatever I'm holding.
This. Being in those fleets and the constant questions about paplink always made me think of the seagulls from Finding Nemo. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
838
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:06:53 -
[3087] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late. So basically your answer to that 100M trollceptor is to bring a 200M+ cerberus ..unless of course, there are a few more names in local, which may or may not be a support fleet waiting for you just to do so, in which case you'll stay docked? On second thought, make that a support fleet anywhere in range and a single additional pilot in local, to keep the point till his friends arrive.
See, we're already moving away from myth of the unkillable trollceptor to a proper fleet engagement.
Shouldn't have been this hard, but we got there.
Could it be that they were, in fact, aiming for exactly this? To make it possible to take undefended sov without a [super]cap grind, to ensure that uncontested/undefended areas fall quickly, but defended areas are much harder to dislodge without making a proper effort?
It's almost as if the advantages are stacked to the attackers if the space is unused and undefended but stacked with the defenders if it is. Some tweaks required, but they're damned sure in the right ballpark. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:07:24 -
[3088] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: Interceptors? Nothing but scouts with the ability to start the process of robbing systems from the lazy and absent.
Define "lazy and absent". Right now you need to bring a unbeatable fleet and commit it for a period of time to shoot structures.
With the new system, you only need the THREAT of an unbeatable fleet and commit a couple of ships that tap those same structures.
Seems a pretty onesided issue, IMO.
Of course the interceptor fleet is worthless without a sizeable backup fleet, which may just explain why the CFC is not too worried about said change. It's actually pretty generous of them to point out the flaws. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1602
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:10:18 -
[3089] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Interceptors? Nothing but scouts with the ability to start the process of robbing systems from the lazy and absent.
Define "lazy and absent". Right now you need to bring a unbeatable fleet and commit it for a period of time to shoot structures. With the new system, you only need the THREAT of an unbeatable fleet and commit a couple of ships that tap those same structures. Seems a pretty onesided issue, IMO. Of course the interceptor fleet is worthless without a sizeable backup fleet, which may just explain why the CFC is not too worried about said change. It's actually pretty generous of them to point out the flaws.
You may very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment. However the possibility of the loss of rental empires, and large areas of lightly or unoccupied space, could also have had some consideration in the article.
Who knows?
Nothing like handing out pitchforks and burning brands to the mob, to get your own way?
But an old, tactic, CCP are a lot smarter now, surely they wouldn't waste their time with such jaded and discredited methods, so you may be right, generous. Right......
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:14:58 -
[3090] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
So basically your answer to that 100M trollceptor is to bring a 200M+ cerberus ..unless of course, there are a few more names in local, which may or may not be a support fleet waiting for you just to do so, in which case you'll stay docked?
On second thought, make that a support fleet anywhere in range and a single additional pilot in local, to keep the point till his friends arrive.
In EvE it's more a matter of good manners to suppose a trap and outsmart your enemy.
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
351
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:22:58 -
[3091] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Wow, I caught up. OK, few points I have taken away so far. 1) People will use this to troll or aggravate other groups . . . like they don't right now? 2) Sov needs to have value. Agreed but if we gave it value before we changed how it changed hands you would be grinding structures again. I was under the impression most folks hated grinding structures. 3) Goons will ruin everything. How is that different from any other point in the past few years. The do because they like to. 4) Fozzie will be splitting some key points into separate threads. Great, so we can tick these down one at a time. 6) Mike hates OCD folks, anarchist 7) I was and am in favour of the overall ideas presented. I said that often and before I waded into this morass of a threadnaught. If you want other CSM's personal opinions, ask them. Maybe they will tell you the truth as well. Maybe. 8) I am amazed at some of the fits you guys been throwing about for a module not yet described except in vaguest terms but I really want you to focus on the key thing . . . no outside help for the entosis ship while in cycle. Vulnerable is the key. 9) I am amazed none of you realized that intel and cloaky camping will have a new purpose. Watching local to see if and when nobody is home during prime time. Or when the defense force tends to be lax. 10) All night shops are open 24 hours a day by rotating their staff. A large multi-timezone organization could do the same for the prime time to make things interesting for different parts of its membership. 11) If I were an Aussie alliance I would hire mercs to drag a late night prime time over to my slot so we could finish it off. Remember prime time is when the battle has to start, not end. but what do I know? I am just a hisec carebear and hell yes I will be on a ganked roam with RvB when they take out ships to knock over undefended sovs. Looking forward to the single out threads oh and some stats for you, make of them what you will m 1) So nothing changes there so were off to a good start
2) Very true but I think the question should be - When will sov become worth something. These changes we get told only little pieces of information regarding,coming up to 6 months apart is not good for moral (6 accounts unsubbed, 2 sold, 2 to go, if i don't feel the game holds value for me soon, well.,.,. (I know, I'm just 1 person, who cares if I leave)
3) Goons and others like them will only be an issue if CCP get this wrong. These changes implemented correctly, with minor changes to jump bridges and how sov is held and taken could see the blok members no better off than a lone 400 man alliance.
4) see response 2)
5) you missed it so I will too.
6) I'm not OCD but do like things to be "just so"
7) I like most of the changes but a few tweaks could see a big improvement in regard to small groups taking and holding sov.
8) When vague descriptions and guesses is all you have, you go with what is available. CCP history in this sort of thing, opens the door to the worst case scenario usually being close to right.
9) Yeah I mentioned earlier how much more power CCP is giving a cloak camper and still no way to counter them. Sov will be easier to lose if defensive indexes are low and ONE cloaky camper can pretty much ensure, they stay low.
10) LOL, you really think large alliances are going to risk their own sov with multiple "prime times" when they can just as easily use the time to screw everyone else over? Another point, I imagined prime time would be a once daily thing that is preset. If you can have multiple "Prime Times" or they can be easily changed there is really no point having them at all. I can see it now, nah don't feel like doing prime time today, lets cancel it. Oh no, there is Goons/PL/BL/NC. (or anyone else you can name) a few jumps away, quick change prime time.
For "Prime Time" to be a valid mechanic it needs to be at a set time for "at least" 7 days at a time. 4 hours might be a little too long, especially for any group with members who have lives. 4 hours is tuning eve into a job, prime time should be meaningful but not demanding. Surviving prime time should also have rewards. Games with these sort of mechanics all have a reward system - This is not in the nature of eve but if eve is going to continue expanding the "mini game" concept, it needs to be worth it to players to participate.
11) There is a major problem with the new sov mechanics. The use of outside help to take or hold sov is handing the bloks what ever wherever they want. Sov warfare needs to be alliance based. Or at best if an alliance has outside help, all multipliers surrounding sov are increased for every fleet member not in the attacking or defending alliance. If your ihub has been RF'd and a fleet made up of 5 different alliances turns up to kill it, for every person shooting the ihub who is not in the primary alliance (the one who RF'd it) the ihub gets extra armor and hull. So if you bring a 250 man fleet and 200 of them are from different alliances the ihub is going to be just as hard to kill is it is now.
Or, much easier to implement but will upset coalition members. If anyone other than the attacking alliance shoots the structure, it does not take damage - a bit like shooting a pos that has been RF'd.
No point reducing hit points on sov structures if the only real benefit is to large groups of blues.
- - - - - - - - - - - Under the new and improved sov, blue status should ONLY mean "we won't attack you" and "we will trade with you and allow you safe passage, docking rights, etc. What it should not mean is, lets put together huge fleets and go screw with small sov holders.
CCP has an opportunity here to minimize the effects large coalitions have on sov nul. I hope they don't waste it.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2011
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:24:11 -
[3092] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote: It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive.
And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me.
But if you try to keep that commitment for too long in a spread and non focused way you LOOSE that cohesion. That is not MY prediction, that is known for centuries from generals experience on keeping an army cohesion for long engagements. That have been later re discovered by managers at most companies around the world. Its human nature. If you keep the decentralized into non focused tasks for too long you LOSE the capability of focusing when you need it. So if CFC TRIES to do that .. in haklf a year they will lose a LOT of their power. But your leadership is nto dumb enough to do that. I've made a couple of runs at writing a reply, but ultimately, people who haven't seen or experienced how we operate, wont get it no matter how I explain. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as from the inside, I see it an entirely possible (and desirable) event. (I am just picturing the entire Verite sov-map going black, as it someone turned off the lights. That thought alone should worry people).
Then you have not even READ how the system really works. I suggest you go and try it again. Because the trolls ceptors cannot REMOVE the sov, just EXPOSE IT!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1435
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:24:51 -
[3093] - Quote
:tinfoil:
The plan is working as intended. CCP make sov so bad that it empties. When the carrot patch comes everyone rushes back out again. A Spft reset, to give the illusion of motion. |
Anthar Thebess
948
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:26:33 -
[3094] - Quote
S2N forum leak about upcoming sov changes : http://pastebin.com/3PgbuNtD
Have fun reading.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1050
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:27:03 -
[3095] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:Tamdra Beebort wrote: how long can you pilots keep it up? I have absolutely no doubt that if an organization as large as Goonswarm can reliably entertain it's members by RF'ing the rest of nullsec every few days, then they absolutely will just because they can. Sweet black baby jesus someone outside the CFC who comes close to understanding us.
I wavered on the "entertain it's members by" part. The statement would be just as valid without those words
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:27:25 -
[3096] - Quote
Blackfangg wrote:.... BlackFangg
Good write up, but it's all theoretical. Even in an active alliance that covers a lot of of TZs, you won't have players around each time somebody's seriously trying to troll you and your sov. As Vigilanta pointed out, let's say a certain medium-large 0.0 entity owns between 20-30 systems. That means at least 20 ihubs + 20 tcus + let's say 5 stations, so 45 sov structures. Only a handful of these systems are going to be maxed out, many of them (due to a lot of bad truesec systems) are going to be fast grinds. So let's say a gang decides to come with inties in your worst TZ - picking at your sov structures. You need to dock up all your stuff, reship, go after them, they'll still be able to cover more ground than you do (because they're the attackers and pre-setup) and end up reinforcing a lot of structures before you can chase them off. Now you have to deal with up to 450 fun nodes to be taken care of in your prime time. And this will take time, now let's count in the hostiles return with a ceptor gang or a WH group is trying to get some kills out of you - you're all spread out trying to cover as many nodes as possible.
So even with a more than serious attempt to actually take your sov, you need to spend most of your prime time to cover this. Every goddamn time. So while certain 0.0 profession make comparable income (especially when considering alts), the new influx of CTAs, roaming marauders, the usual cloaky campers and constant pvp shenanigans- the actual time you can spend to pay for your fun down there drops a lot. Plus you're putting a reasonable amount of ISKs at risk in stations that can be flipped (even faster now and with the risk of enemies playing station games and bubbling the hell out if it), multiple shiptypes that need to be stored etc. Then I'd rather live in a WH and pick my own fights or drop an alt in FW in lowsec - at least I don't have to live in that craphole then.
Now 0.0 entities will adapt, probably dropping sov in the outer regions of their empires to only "claim" sov where they need absolutely need to have their ihubs and tower boni. But does this mean that 0.0 gets more crowded, get a new influx of new players trying to grab space? Probably the first weeks, until they get trolled by usual guys and decide to move out or join up another coalition to get help or at least one or two secured borders. There'll be vast regions of unclaimed sov space but I don't see any major power shifts.
I'm just saying - this system has it perks but also devastating cons - it won't break up the blue donut, nor will it break up coalitions. It actually encourages people to keep the blue setting to secure home borders, split up rich regions and guard their territory. Numbers are still the primary source of power, grinding will be even more part of the 0.0 life - now we just exchanged HP grinding for mere time spent activating a high slot module.
The primary reason for alliances to fold is burn out and low morale, especially when all you need to do is grind all day. I don't think it should be encouraging to do this, but rather promote smaller 0.0 entities that don't need backup of their partners, so many decent proposals were made the past weeks, just incorporate them into this. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1602
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:31:23 -
[3097] - Quote
L Interesting, some were complaining it is a ****** up mechanic, and then making suggestions for changes, then admitting they had not read it ?
Surely not, isn't any proposal potentially ****** up until you read it? And discover the opposite?
Next time Fozzie make people quote paragraph 8 word 16 before they are allowed to comment, they may not understand it, but they at least put the effort in to read it.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
720
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:42:11 -
[3098] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Can not "contained" sansha incursion drop sov ? If you did not care to stop the incursion ....
Its difficult to get the people together to finish off an incursion. Killing the mothership especially is hard, about 70 people required, and a good incursion FC and competent logi besides.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2015
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:42:57 -
[3099] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Can not "contained" sansha incursion drop sov ? If you did not care to stop the incursion .... Its difficult to get the people together to finish off an incursion. Killing the mothership especially is hard, about 70 people required, and a good incursion FC and competent logi besides.
I do not know if you serious or joking. But if you are serious.. you are implying that 0.0 people are unable to match high sec level of organization?
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2015
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:44:05 -
[3100] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Blackfangg wrote:.... BlackFangg Good write up, but it's all theoretical. Even in an active alliance that covers a lot of of TZs, you won't have players around each time somebody's seriously trying to troll you and your sov. As Vigilanta pointed out, let's say a certain medium-large 0.0 entity owns between 20-30 systems. That means at least 20 ihubs + 20 tcus + let's say 5 stations, so 45 sov structures. Only a handful of these systems are going to be maxed out, many of them (due to a lot of bad truesec systems) are going to be fast grinds. So let's say a gang decides to come with inties in your worst TZ - picking at your sov structures. You need to dock up all your stuff, reship, go after them, they'll still be able to cover more ground than you do (because they're the attackers and pre-setup) and end up reinforcing a lot of structures before you can chase them off. Now you have to deal with up to 450 fun nodes to be taken care of in your prime time. And this will take time, now let's count in the hostiles return with a ceptor gang or a WH group is trying to get some kills out of you - you're all spread out trying to cover as many nodes as possible. So even with a more than serious attempt to actually take your sov, you need to spend most of your prime time to cover this. Every goddamn time. So while certain 0.0 profession make comparable income (especially when considering alts), the new influx of CTAs, roaming marauders, the usual cloaky campers and constant pvp shenanigans- the actual time you can spend to pay for your fun down there drops a lot. Plus you're putting a reasonable amount of ISKs at risk in stations that can be flipped (even faster now and with the risk of enemies playing station games and bubbling the hell out if it), multiple shiptypes that need to be stored etc. Then I'd rather live in a WH and pick my own fights or drop an alt in FW in lowsec - at least I don't have to live in that craphole then. Now 0.0 entities will adapt, probably dropping sov in the outer regions of their empires to only "claim" sov where they need absolutely need to have their ihubs and tower boni. But does this mean that 0.0 gets more crowded, get a new influx of new players trying to grab space? Probably the first weeks, until they get trolled by usual guys and decide to move out or join up another coalition to get help or at least one or two secured borders. There'll be vast regions of unclaimed sov space but I don't see any major power shifts. I'm just saying - this system has it perks but also devastating cons - it won't break up the blue donut, nor will it break up coalitions. It actually encourages people to keep the blue setting to secure home borders, split up rich regions and guard their territory. Numbers are still the primary source of power, grinding will be even more part of the 0.0 life - now we just exchanged HP grinding for mere time spent activating a high slot module. The primary reason for alliances to fold is burn out and low morale, especially when all you need to do is grind all day. I don't think it should be encouraging to do this, but rather promote smaller 0.0 entities that don't need backup of their partners, so many decent proposals were made the past weeks, just incorporate them into this.
Nothign personal. But please go back and READ the dev blog. You got all the mechanics WRONG.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:52:45 -
[3101] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:many of them (due to a lot of bad truesec systems) are going to be fast grinds. So why do they bother holding them at all if they're not using them? If they're worthless then why have they stuck a flag in it and why would they care about losing that flag? Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:they'll still be able to cover more ground than you do (because they're the attackers and pre-setup) and end up reinforcing a lot of structures before you can chase them off. Nope, they need at least 10 minutes with the grid to themselves AFTER their initial 2 minute cycle times and that's for a system with zero indices that you weren't using anyways. If you're using it then these invulnerable interceptors (with no tank or combat ability or incoming RR) have to remain on grid for 42 minutes minimum.
Hey Mr. Wormhole, funny to see you typing in capital letters now you've understood that 2 minute cycle time thingy. Congrats!
You're happy talking in here while having no clue about the actual day-to-day life in a 0.0 alliance. Just because a system doesn't get used that much doesn't mean it's unoccupied, some systems in constellations are just totally rubbish or used as backup on prime time / weekends when a lot of players are online. Additionally people so tend to have private lives, alliances have activity fluctuations over their TZs and to swarm out everytime a group appears and picks at systems isn't viable or it'll burn you out. 42 minutes is for a totally maxed out system (you can count these on one hand in most alliances) - all other systems will be around 15-30 minutes.
Now you just take a group of 30-50 people in the right ships and lay waste to an alliance that's not in their proper TZ, this will be enough to reinforce enough or even camp their stations because these players will be scattered over systems in PVE ships with no FC around. And I did talk about the probable reaction of most 0.0 entities in the long run and what is the most convenient way to tackle this new system - and if you look at most 0.0 residents, they usually choose the most convenient way.
So I don't see the huge benefits of the new system because it doesn't really tackle the biggest issues of 0.0 atm. It'll lead to more dead space and the death of supercaps and dreads. Congratz. |
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:59:05 -
[3102] - Quote
right are you guys stupid? they won't drop.sov because they will do as they do now just rent the space out!! nothing changes large alliances do nothing but sit back and make billions just because they have a massive supercap fleet. that's the problem that needs to be sorted. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1605
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:02:00 -
[3103] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:many of them (due to a lot of bad truesec systems) are going to be fast grinds. So why do they bother holding them at all if they're not using them? If they're worthless then why have they stuck a flag in it and why would they care about losing that flag? Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:they'll still be able to cover more ground than you do (because they're the attackers and pre-setup) and end up reinforcing a lot of structures before you can chase them off. Nope, they need at least 10 minutes with the grid to themselves AFTER their initial 2 minute cycle times and that's for a system with zero indices that you weren't using anyways. If you're using it then these invulnerable interceptors (with no tank or combat ability or incoming RR) have to remain on grid for 42 minutes minimum. Hey Mr. Wormhole, funny to see you typing in capital letters now you've understood that 2 minute cycle time thingy. Congrats! You're happy talking in here while having no clue about the actual day-to-day life in a 0.0 alliance. Just because a system doesn't get used that much doesn't mean it's unoccupied, some systems in constellations are just totally rubbish or used as backup on prime time / weekends when a lot of players are online. Additionally people so tend to have private lives, alliances have activity fluctuations over their TZs and to swarm out everytime a group appears and picks at systems isn't viable or it'll burn you out. 42 minutes is for a totally maxed out system (you can count these on one hand in most alliances) - all other systems will be around 15-30 minutes. Now you just take a group of 30-50 people in the right ships and lay waste to an alliance that's not in their proper TZ, this will be enough to reinforce enough or even camp their stations because these players will be scattered over systems in PVE ships with no FC around. And I did talk about the probable reaction of most 0.0 entities in the long run and what is the most convenient way to tackle this new system - and if you look at most 0.0 residents, they usually choose the most convenient way. So I don't see the huge benefits of the new system because it doesn't really tackle the biggest issues of 0.0 atm. It'll lead to more dead space and the death of supercaps and dreads. Congratz. Respectfully, people in other areas of space are quite capable of reading the dev blogs and understanding them, as any other person, many have read through multiple times to pick up on the finer points.
Whilst people in other areas, may not have the deep understanding of current mechanics, as this is a completely new Sov, one can see just as well the advantages and otherwise of this system.
It may not compare to the current environment as it is changing it, totally. And the current use of space, size and distribution of alliances, and whether renters continue to be an income source, is something we will see in the months ahead.
The reason is, that CCP are giving nullsec tools that allow nullsec to decide their own future and destiny, other than a role as pieces on a chessboard, played by the powerful. This is different in that there is no predestined outcome, and in hindsight, we can see that was the only realistic outcome with dominion.
You may choose to return to that or be more independent, the thing is, you now have a choice. You have no future but the one you create for yourself. A frightening concept, but the only one people should embrace.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
307
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:03:09 -
[3104] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:many of them (due to a lot of bad truesec systems) are going to be fast grinds. So why do they bother holding them at all if they're not using them? If they're worthless then why have they stuck a flag in it and why would they care about losing that flag? Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:they'll still be able to cover more ground than you do (because they're the attackers and pre-setup) and end up reinforcing a lot of structures before you can chase them off. Nope, they need at least 10 minutes with the grid to themselves AFTER their initial 2 minute cycle times and that's for a system with zero indices that you weren't using anyways. If you're using it then these invulnerable interceptors (with no tank or combat ability or incoming RR) have to remain on grid for 42 minutes minimum. Hey Mr. Wormhole, funny to see you typing in capital letters now you've understood that 2 minute cycle time thingy. Congrats! You're happy talking in here while having no clue about the actual day-to-day life in a 0.0 alliance. Just because a system doesn't get used that much doesn't mean it's unoccupied, some systems in constellations are just totally rubbish or used as backup on prime time / weekends when a lot of players are online. Additionally people do tend to have private lives, alliances have activity fluctuations over their TZs and to swarm out everytime a group appears and picks at systems isn't viable or it'll burn you out. 42 minutes is for a totally maxed out system (you can count these on one hand in most alliances) - all other systems will be around 15-30 minutes. Now you just take a group of 30-50 people in the right ships and lay waste to an alliance that's not in their proper TZ, this will be enough to reinforce enough or even camp their stations because these players will be scattered over systems in PVE ships with no FC around. And I did talk about the probable reaction of most 0.0 entities in the long run and what is the most convenient way to tackle this new system - and if you look at most 0.0 residents, they usually choose the most convenient way. So I don't see the huge benefits of the new system because it doesn't really tackle the biggest issues of 0.0 atm. It'll lead to more dead space and the death of supercaps and dreads. Congratz. And nerfing the lure of 0.0, too.
Sounds to me that alliance that gets shut down that way by "30 to 50 people" does not deserve to be in null. Just because " they have no FC around". That is an attitude problem.
Assuming they have the ability to field similar numbers. If not then it would be just ol'good blobbing :) With the key difference that if attacker does not stick around afterwards the smaller guy can just flip the sov back around.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
277
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:04:28 -
[3105] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Hey Mr. Wormhole, funny to see you typing in capital letters now you've understood that 2 minute cycle time thingy. Congrats!
You're happy talking in here while having no clue about the actual day-to-day life in a 0.0 alliance. Just because a system doesn't get used that much doesn't mean it's unoccupied, some systems in constellations are just totally rubbish. Additionally people so tend to have private lives, alliances have activity fluctuations over their TZs and to swarm out everytime a group appears and picks at systems isn't viable or it'll burn you out. 42 minutes is for a totally maxed out system (you can count these on one hand in most alliances) - all other systems will be around 15-30 minutes.
Now you just take a group of 30-50 people in the right ships and lay waste to an alliance that's not in their proper TZ, this will be enough to reinforce enough or even camp their stations because these players will be scattered over systems in PVE ships with no FC around. And I did talk about the probable reaction of most 0.0 entities in the long run and what is the most convenient way to tackle this new system - and if you look at most 0.0 residents, they usually choose the most convenient way.
So I don't see the huge benefits of the new system because it doesn't really tackle the biggest issues of 0.0 atm. It'll lead to more dead space and the death of supercaps and dreads. Congratz. Firstly, yet again, I don't live in a wormhole...anymore.
Secondly, if you're not using the system, you have no need to hold sov for it unless it's a strategic system, in which case you might expect a strategic defence fleet to be placed NEARBY, idk, maybe because you might want to defend your strategic system possibly?
Thirdly you talk about an alliance not being in their proper TZ - THEY GET TO CHOOSE THEIR PRIMETIME WHEN THEY ARE VULNERABLE.
Fourthly there's already been a discussion about how more FCs will be needed and that F1 monkeys are going to need more leadership around because an uber blob descending on people with their alliances one star FC is not how CCP want sov warfare to work anymore.
Finally with 7000 words and maybe dragging your finger over them at one a minute - I expect to see you back in 12 hours once you've actually read and digested the content of the devblog instead of spouting utter rubbish and not understanding the mechanics and intended changes whatsoever.
GG |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30774
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:07:48 -
[3106] - Quote
For only 5 ISK a day, you can help sponsor Special Eddie.
Eddie was diagnosed with Entosis at the age of five, after his parents noticed they were unable to hold his attention for more than 5 minutes at a time. Initially, from two months of age, his parents suspected that Eddie suffered from ADHD or Asperger's Syndrome, but Ritalin did nothing to improve his condition.
He is currently fifteen years old and suffers from late-stage Entosis, characterized by sporadic responsiveness, usually within a four-hour window each evening. Eddie requires occasional laser treatment to restore his basic bodily functions.
Eddie also requires dialysis.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:09:10 -
[3107] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:many of them (due to a lot of bad truesec systems) are going to be fast grinds. So why do they bother holding them at all if they're not using them? If they're worthless then why have they stuck a flag in it and why would they care about losing that flag? Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:they'll still be able to cover more ground than you do (because they're the attackers and pre-setup) and end up reinforcing a lot of structures before you can chase them off. Nope, they need at least 10 minutes with the grid to themselves AFTER their initial 2 minute cycle times and that's for a system with zero indices that you weren't using anyways. If you're using it then these invulnerable interceptors (with no tank or combat ability or incoming RR) have to remain on grid for 42 minutes minimum. Hey Mr. Wormhole, funny to see you typing in capital letters now you've understood that 2 minute cycle time thingy. Congrats! You're happy talking in here while having no clue about the actual day-to-day life in a 0.0 alliance. Just because a system doesn't get used that much doesn't mean it's unoccupied, some systems in constellations are just totally rubbish or used as backup on prime time / weekends when a lot of players are online. Additionally people so tend to have private lives, alliances have activity fluctuations over their TZs and to swarm out everytime a group appears and picks at systems isn't viable or it'll burn you out. 42 minutes is for a totally maxed out system (you can count these on one hand in most alliances) - all other systems will be around 15-30 minutes. Now you just take a group of 30-50 people in the right ships and lay waste to an alliance that's not in their proper TZ, this will be enough to reinforce enough or even camp their stations because these players will be scattered over systems in PVE ships with no FC around. And I did talk about the probable reaction of most 0.0 entities in the long run and what is the most convenient way to tackle this new system - and if you look at most 0.0 residents, they usually choose the most convenient way. So I don't see the huge benefits of the new system because it doesn't really tackle the biggest issues of 0.0 atm. It'll lead to more dead space and the death of supercaps and dreads. Congratz. Respectfully, people in other areas of space are quite capable of reading the dev blogs and understanding them, as any other person, many have read through multiple times to pick up on the finer points. Whilst people in other areas, may not have the deep understanding of current mechanics, as this is a completely new Sov, one can see just as well the advantages and otherwise of this system. It may not compare to the current environment as it is changing it, totally. And the current use of space, size and distribution of alliances, and whether renters continue to be an income source, is something we will see in the months ahead. The reason is, that CCP are giving nullsec tools that allow nullsec to decide their own future and destiny, other than a role as pieces on a chessboard, played by the powerful. This is different in that there is no predestined outcome, and in hindsight, we can see that was the only realistic outcome with dominion. You may choose to return to that or be more independent, the thing is, you now have a choice. You have no future but the one you create for yourself. A frightening concept, but the only one people should embrace.
That wasn't directed at WH residents in general, but at this person in particular. Everybody's free to post their opinion and each opinion is subjective. Nobody is able to predict the future because we don't know what's about to come and what players are going to do about it. We can all just try to imagine what effects this might have and how players are able to exploit it. When it comes to exploiting, Eve players are pretty good ;)
I do think that people currently living in 0.0 do care more about what's going to happen than WH/empire residents. Same as when people talk about HS shenanigans and 0.0 people want to remove Concord or any other related change to the space people have to live in - they tend to care more about it. I'll be off to WHs if this comes through, have always been intrigued to go there - now ISKs will be better, you can pick your own fights and don't have to deal with politics and grinds. |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2717
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:11:19 -
[3108] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late. So basically your answer to that 100M trollceptor is to bring a 200M+ cerberus ..unless of course, there are a few more names in local, which may or may not be a support fleet waiting for you just to do so, in which case you'll stay docked? On second thought, make that a support fleet anywhere in range and a single additional pilot in local, to keep the point till his friends arrive.
In wich case it is not a trollceptor , just a normal ''bait and catch'' . Problem solved and content created , AWSOME right?
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:14:20 -
[3109] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Specia1 K wrote:Torgeir Hekard wrote:baltec1 wrote:Same reason we would use them, to ruin someone else's game. Why the hell would you ruin someone else's game at the expense of your own game? Well, goons would do it to prove a point. Which is like proving that meat grinders are dangerous and should require operation license by shoving your hand into one. But why would RvB take part in this idiocy if they don't get their fun from it? lol, I just spewed my coffee :) Wait, so you're saying we'd end everyone else's sov, but no one would end our 0.0 dream? That doesn't sound right. I'm sure massadeath of moa said they were going to end us
Umm ..we will harass and do what we can to force you to condense into a more reasonable space size. Instead of the 95% wasted and empty space up north. We will keep harassing and Rfing until you either give up that system..or some other force wants to take it.
I think the whole point is.... you cant hold what you cant defend... so naturally alliances will have to condense into a much smaller ball of SOV, than the current sprawling empty space that currently exists. How many systems that is? who knows... I guess we will see how the mechanics play out, and the tenacity of the attackers and defenders of that space.
That being said... its going to be fun endlessly RFing and blowing up goons structures..and baiting them, counter dropping them, and generally harassing them into whatever size space the mechanics will allow.
We do intend to take space as well, however we have no illusions that we can hold that space... As the Apex force has not really been dealt with. And no small entity can hold space if a large apex force can roll thru that SOV every few weeks or so and reset it. :)
That being said...who cares about SOV... we are NPC..so its more of a getting fights thing than anything :)
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:16:49 -
[3110] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Hey Mr. Wormhole, funny to see you typing in capital letters now you've understood that 2 minute cycle time thingy. Congrats!
You're happy talking in here while having no clue about the actual day-to-day life in a 0.0 alliance. Just because a system doesn't get used that much doesn't mean it's unoccupied, some systems in constellations are just totally rubbish. Additionally people so tend to have private lives, alliances have activity fluctuations over their TZs and to swarm out everytime a group appears and picks at systems isn't viable or it'll burn you out. 42 minutes is for a totally maxed out system (you can count these on one hand in most alliances) - all other systems will be around 15-30 minutes.
Now you just take a group of 30-50 people in the right ships and lay waste to an alliance that's not in their proper TZ, this will be enough to reinforce enough or even camp their stations because these players will be scattered over systems in PVE ships with no FC around. And I did talk about the probable reaction of most 0.0 entities in the long run and what is the most convenient way to tackle this new system - and if you look at most 0.0 residents, they usually choose the most convenient way.
So I don't see the huge benefits of the new system because it doesn't really tackle the biggest issues of 0.0 atm. It'll lead to more dead space and the death of supercaps and dreads. Congratz. Firstly, yet again, I don't live in a wormhole...anymore. Secondly, if you're not using the system, you have no need to hold sov for it unless it's a strategic system, in which case you might expect a strategic defence fleet to be placed NEARBY, idk, maybe because you might want to defend your strategic system possibly? Thirdly you talk about an alliance not being in their proper TZ - THEY GET TO CHOOSE THEIR PRIMETIME WHEN THEY ARE VULNERABLE. Fourthly there's already been a discussion about how more FCs will be needed and that F1 monkeys are going to need more leadership around because an uber blob descending on people with their alliances one star FC is not how CCP want sov warfare to work anymore. Finally with 7000 words and maybe dragging your finger over them at one a minute - I expect to see you back in 12 hours once you've actually read and digested the content of the devblog instead of spouting utter rubbish and not understanding the mechanics and intended changes whatsoever. GG
True, I thought that you can reinforce anytime and then it comes out during designated prime time - but I highly doubt that CCP seriously is going to enforce a 4h timeframe which is probably going to lock up most sov fights. The other points are still viable. Btw. harrassing people to read up after having trouble do so yourself, GG |
|
Specia1 K
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:19:57 -
[3111] - Quote
Or simply:
CCP declares "Goons win Eve!"
Then reboots the servers, everyone has 10k isk and 1k SP, and we start all over with "EVE2 - From The Ashes"
Every sports system in the world is based on that model. And it works to re-invigorate the system every single time. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1605
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:20:46 -
[3112] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Eli Apol wrote:[quote=Schluffi Schluffelsen]many of them (due to a lot of bad truesec systems) are going to be fast grinds. So why do they bother holding them at all if they're not using them? If they're worthless then why have they stuck a flag in it and why would they care about losing that flag? Hey Mr. Wormhole, funny to see you typing in capital letters now you've understood that 2 minute cycle time thingy. Congrats! You're happy talking in here while having no clue about the actual day-to-day life in a 0.0 alliance. Just because a system doesn't get used that much doesn't mean it's unoccupied, some systems in constellations are just totally rubbish or used as backup on prime time / weekends when a lot of players are online. Additionally people so tend to have private lives, alliances have activity fluctuations over their TZs and to swarm out everytime a group appears and picks at systems isn't viable or it'll burn you out. 42 minutes is for a totally maxed out system (you can count these on one hand in most alliances) - all other systems will be around 15-30 minutes. Now you just take a group of 30-50 people in the right ships and lay waste to an alliance that's not in their proper TZ, this will be enough to reinforce enough or even camp their stations because these players will be scattered over systems in PVE ships with no FC around. And I did talk about the probable reaction of most 0.0 entities in the long run and what is the most convenient way to tackle this new system - and if you look at most 0.0 residents, they usually choose the most convenient way. So I don't see the huge benefits of the new system because it doesn't really tackle the biggest issues of 0.0 atm. It'll lead to more dead space and the death of supercaps and dreads. Congratz. Respectfully, people in other areas of space are quite capable of reading the dev blogs and understanding them, as any other person, many have read through multiple times to pick up on the finer points. Whilst people in other areas, may not have the deep understanding of current mechanics, as this is a completely new Sov, one can see just as well the advantages and otherwise of this system. It may not compare to the current environment as it is changing it, totally. And the current use of space, size and distribution of alliances, and whether renters continue to be an income source, is something we will see in the months ahead. The reason is, that CCP are giving nullsec tools that allow nullsec to decide their own future and destiny, other than a role as pieces on a chessboard, played by the powerful. This is different in that there is no predestined outcome, and in hindsight, we can see that was the only realistic outcome with dominion. You may choose to return to that or be more independent, the thing is, you now have a choice. You have no future but the one you create for yourself. A frightening concept, but the only one people should embrace. That wasn't directed at WH residents in general, but at this person in particular. Everybody's free to post their opinion and each opinion is subjective. Nobody is able to predict the future because we don't know what's about to come and what players are going to do about it. We can all just try to imagine what effects this might have and how players are able to exploit it. When it comes to exploiting, Eve players are pretty good ;) I do think that people currently living in 0.0 do care more about what's going to happen than WH/empire residents. Same as when people talk about HS shenanigans and 0.0 people want to remove Concord or any other related change to the space people have to live in - they tend to care more about it. I'll be off to WHs if this comes through, have always been intrigued to go there - now ISKs will be better, you can pick your own fights and don't have to deal with politics and grinds. Seriously, I am a wormholer, but more than that, I am an EvE player, All areas, deserve a place to call home, where they can live, thrive and survive. I absolutely believe and support that concept. And I have lived for a time in null, and it was not an experience I could describe as thriving and engaging. I have read every post in this thread, and other than responding to an obvious troll, I have attempted to clarify one or two points that are blindingly clear when reading the Devblog, for those who were set ablaze by the pitchforks and torches brigade, for whatever reason and motivation.
The one point I take from the whole process that CCP are embarking on is a complete expression of CCP Seagulls philosophy. Where one gives the players good tools, that do not influence the outcome to develop in a pre determined way, and to act as a balancing force if things take a turn that is a negative for the overall experience.
This as you can imagine, is hard for people who are used to another environment, even if they are aware of their shortfalls of their current environment.
Time zone, is certainly a point to address to achieve the very best result, but it needs fine tuning more than a different system.
The ability for all areas to be a valid, defendable productive home, for someone, is also something that needs investigation, and I make no assumptions, or prejudgement of the result.
In short, I wish you the very best of wishes and future success
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
280
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:22:39 -
[3113] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:True, I thought that you can reinforce anytime and then it comes out during designated prime time - but I highly doubt that CCP seriously is going to enforce a 4h timeframe which is probably going to lock up most sov fights. The other points are still viable. Btw. harrassing people to read up after having trouble do so yourself, GG *Admits to not having understood the mechanics and fully digested the devblog*
then tries to make out that it was me that had the problem with doing so?
Please, just stahp.
I have enough of an inflated post count in this thread from dealing with 1 in 5 posts from goons saying 'but but trollceptors' let alone dealing with the likes of you. Next time, get on TS, read out what you're about to type to someone that's actually read and understood the devblog, then ask them whether or not you should post it. |
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:30:17 -
[3114] - Quote
After a couple of days reading and thinking about the suggested changes, and discussing the changes in forums etc, I think CCP has overlooked a crucial part.
CCP has identified upgraded ratting systems as the "driver" that will generate wars over soverignity in nullsec. "Ratting is the major ISK faucet", some CCP-members tweeted recently. But that is hardly what finances the large sov-holding alliances, it's only partly true.
It is the R64/32 moons, and the related complex reaction farms that turns that scarce resource to ISK.
You might argue that it allready IS tied to sov-mechanics - in nullsec you get a 25% bous to the fuel usage of POSes in sov-systems. But for R64s/32s this is hardly signitificant on the bottom line. For a R64 POS that generates 6,5 B ISK / month in pure moon-goo-value, it does not matter if the fuel costs 500 M ISK or 375 M ISK. For the reactor farm that doubles or tripples that value through a chain of simple and complex reactions, and thus uses more POSes, it has a larger impact but it is still not crucial.
The new sov-mechanic should somehow be tied to the wealth-generation-capability in nullsec. I.e. tied to the R64/32 valuable moons, not just upgrades to systems, JBs, Ratting, Mining, Stations etc. Sov is not needed to control the moons, and the moons is what enables the power of the large alliances. Just look at lowsec - how many R64 moons in lowsec are NOT owned by the large power-blocs today? Now ask yourselfs why that is so? AFAIK there are no sov-mechanics in lowsec? ... right!
What if sov was needed to get 100% yield from the R64 moons? Without sov in a system, those moons only yield a fraction of what they do today, with a TCU you get a higher yield and the fuel-bonus of 25%, and with an iHub AND a TCU you get 100%. Something like that. Or even 125% in sov space, and less that 100% in lowsec - make nullsec R64s even MORE attractive to the power-blocs!
Now apply this also to the yield of simple and complex reactions; no sov - mediocre yield, sov - better yield, TCU - good yield, iHub - same yield as today. I.e. you have to own sov in the systems where you react stuff, or the yield will make it less interesting economically.
We are allready very protecive over our R64/32 moons as it is today. Now BOY would we fight over sov and protect our TCUs and iHubs in the systems where we have R64/32 moons!!!
CCP has focused on the ratting as the ISK-faucet, and belive people will fight like mad over upgraded ratting systems. Ratting is used by the masses, the soldiers, the grunts in all alliances. There are alternatives to nullsec ratting, and when Entosis-equipped trolling-forces start to scrap all upgraded ratting-systems, the masses will start using alternative methods to get ISK. Ratting as major income will decline and that activity can be moved.
But the POWER and the REAL faucets that builds up the major part of the economy of large alliances are the R64/32 moons and the POS-farms that through complex reactions turns that moon-goo into ISK. ISK that is used to build up larger forces of Titans and Supers and to finance war through Ship Replacement Funds, used to pay people that step up and create "content" in alliances and coalitions (FCs, logistics pilots), pays for spy-accounts in enemy alliances and also, to a very large extent, makes certain selected individuals in the hierarchial organisations of all alliances, very very VERY space-rich. So space-rich they can control markets, pay huge amounts to get annoying alliances off their backs etc etc.
No one will fight over sov because it is of very low value in itself. Everyone will fight over the control of R64/32 moons.
CCP; Tie sov to the yield of moons and reactions, and you will get the "driver" to sovereignity confilcts in EVE-Online that you seek.
CEO Svea Rike
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
857
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:33:29 -
[3115] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?
You claim that any small group will be crushed by your thousand upon thousands, but you leave the rest of your territory wide open. So you will lose it just as fast as you gain it.
Everyone knows that without massive numbers, most large blocs do terrible in smaller scale combat compared to the average player due to how much they relied on massive numbers to do anything. ;)]
What you are proposing is stagnation even worse than we have now: if I, as a small alliance, take a roaming gang through a WH during prime time to Catch looking for "good fights" or ratter ganks, nothing stops someone else from setting a bunch of horrible timers that anyone can third party.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1054
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:35:44 -
[3116] - Quote
The current plan will cater to a younger audience who are playing FPS capture the flag games. The older SOV players will get tired of yet another little skirmish in yet another system.
Welcome to Low Sec 2.0
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Blackfangg
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:36:37 -
[3117] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Blackfangg wrote:.... BlackFangg "Only a handful of these systems are going to be maxed out, many of them (due to a lot of bad truesec systems) are going to be fast grinds." " So let's say a gang decides to come with inties in your worst TZ - picking at your sov structures." "now let's count in the hostiles return with a ceptor gang or a WH group is trying to get some kills out of you - you're all spread out trying to cover as many nodes as possible." "So even with a more than serious attempt to actually take your sov, you need to spend most of your prime time to cover this. Every goddamn time.Plus you're putting a reasonable amount of ISKs at risk in stations that can be flipped (even faster now and with the risk of enemies playing station games and bubbling the hell out if it), multiple shiptypes that need to be stored etc." "Then I'd rather live in a WH and pick my own fights or drop an alt in FW in lowsec" "Numbers are still the primary source of power, grinding will be even more part of the 0.0 life - now we just exchanged HP grinding for mere time spent activating a high slot module. The primary reason for alliances to fold is burn out and low morale, especially when all you need to do is grind all day. I don't think it should be encouraging to do this, but rather promote smaller 0.0 entities that don't need backup of their partners" "So many decent proposals were made the past weeks, just incorporate them into this."
Ok you seem very intelligent and that makes me happy, I wish people were reading this better and thinking more rationally like you, me, and the rare other few. But i have a few questions/thoughts on your opinion.
#1: If a system is only high index from a "Fast Grind" and that alone, then it probably isnt lived in, and shouldn't be yours.(potentially didnt understand what you meant here)
#2: Ok now im kinda wondering if you actually read it as well....They cant pick at your structure in your worst TZ....Only in the 4 hours you choose. And if you own 25 systems and live in them all, then you should be able to get 3-6 people in RLM Cerb/Tengu and Hyena/Lokis/Intys of your own online for atleast 4 hours, and if you dont have those that, then you dont own 25 systems.
#3 If they have managed to reinforce 25 systems then you deserve to lose it, 40mins AFTER the warning that EVERYONE gets and no one has shown up? Then ya, shouldnt be yours. Remember: This should be during your 4 hours that you have the most people online. If you dont have enough people to cover the systems then you dont need them.
#4: Ok if you live in null, and your alliance owns systems, you should have PLENTY of ships. I have my ships at my required staging system when on deployments of course, but I keep 10 of every fleet fit frig, 5 of every cruiser, 2 of each BC, and 2 of each BS in my HOME station (Plus atleast 4 of every T2/T3 I can fly, and ammo for everything). In case someday we get attacked en mass. I Literally could live off the stuff in my home station for, weeks if not months of fighting. And I have plenty of ores/mins/salvage to make more if I need them. So if you dont have enough ships...well...rat/mine more. Station flipping thing, at least now you actually have the chance to get stuff out of a lost station (Looking at you Solar and N3) And about the serious attempt. Of course you have to defend you space if someone wants it!!! THATS THE POINT. And if you cant get people to play during your MOST ACTIVE TIME then again, you should lose it.
#5 Well then go, plenty of us left here that will kill your rats, but having an Alt in FW or a WH isnt a bad idea, I have one, its for when I get bored of the empire and just want to hunt lowsec/WHs.
#6 But this isnt possible, if you have 100 people in your corp, and a alliance of 15000 decided they want your space, then its not gonna be yours anymore. They cant make it that way without ruining the game. Because if i couldn't bring a fleet of 1000 with a mix of Supers/Caps/BS/Cruisers/Frigates and beat your 100man alliance flying Tengus, then I'd leave this game because it would be pointless. Whats the point of having a corp at all if you can't have power/safety in numbers? If numbers were ever made to not matter, then EVE would become that themepark MMO everyone talks about.
#7 This is agree with, I think there are things that could be changed, such as maybe a 100km T2 ELink or degrading Strat Index. But I don't think this is a bad first step towards a better EVE, without millions on HP between me and that R-64 over there. Stuffs gonna get crazy after the patch but I believe a year or two from now we will look back and be like "What was I so mad about" Go back and look at how people said splitting Destroyers/Battlecruisers and everything into Racial Destroyer/BC was going to ruin the game and make it too hard to fly things. Or when they nerfed speeds. Or even WH space (Ya a lot of people thought it was dumb, go read the old posts.) I think CCP really should look hard at player opinions, but also there are so many people to please in this game. Its impossible to make them all happy.
-BlackFangg
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1605
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:40:16 -
[3118] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?
You claim that any small group will be crushed by your thousand upon thousands, but you leave the rest of your territory wide open. So you will lose it just as fast as you gain it.
Everyone knows that without massive numbers, most large blocs do terrible in smaller scale combat compared to the average player due to how much they relied on massive numbers to do anything. ;)] What you are proposing is stagnation even worse than we have now: if I, as a small alliance, take a roaming gang through a WH during prime time to Catch looking for "good fights" or ratter ganks, nothing stops someone else from setting a bunch of horrible timers that anyone can third party.
Serious question, do you take your entire constellation, away on your ratting/ganking trips, and no one stays in your home at all during your prime time? If so that does sound like you may be somewhat over extended. Whilst that would allow your systems to become "put into a state of reinforcement", surely when your systems come out of reinforcement, you would be home willing and excited/able to defend?
If not, you certainly would suffer, and you might want to reconsider your allience holdings, before they are taken.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10107
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:44:23 -
[3119] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:The current plan will cater to a younger audience who are playing FPS capture the flag games. The older SOV players will get tired of yet another little skirmish in yet another system.
Welcome to Low Sec 2.0
On the surface that might be true. But the real truth is that that 'younger audience' has the attention span of a brain damaged goldfish where as the types of people who inhabit null now (and who can mentally and emotionally endure the structure grind environment of the current sov system) will be able to deal with situation of the new system in the longer run.
That also illustrates the problem with this sov system, it's Faction warfare 2.0, small gang 'penny packet' gangs and solo hunters will be the order of the day. That's great if you live in low sec and have a 'boxer/gladiator mentality', but sucks if you're a 'soldier' type that actually found fleet warfare interesting (fun is too strong a word).\
Imposing a low sec/FW syle of play on null sec...when actual low sec/FW exists is not the smartest development idea I've ever experienced. If null had to change, making it more like wormhole space would have been more interesting that making it like FW. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
281
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:44:39 -
[3120] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:What you are proposing is stagnation even worse than we have now: if I, as a small alliance, take a roaming gang through a WH during prime time to Catch looking for "good fights" or ratter ganks, nothing stops someone else from setting a bunch of horrible timers that anyone can third party. Why do you need to take your fleet through a WH to catch for pewpew during your primetime?
Go put a simple highslot module on your neighbour's structure and make them come out and play with you whilst still remaining within defensive range of your own space.
If they don't come out to play you make the system neutral and might get better neighbours move in afterwards. |
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1055
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:45:12 -
[3121] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok? Someone got links to these?
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
692
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:46:34 -
[3122] - Quote
Panther X wrote:Angry Mustache wrote:You mentioned that the Entosis link will have low fitting requirements, and not disable propulsion while active.
What is there to prevent massive hordes of T2 entosis fitted interceptors from completely swarming an area and putting entosis links on everything?
All the ceptor has to do is stay within a 250km bubble of the objective, and even if hostiles show up, you just have to MWD around for 2 minutes. If the enemy is trying to entosis your objective, do the same.
What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours? You've made sov easier to take, but that works both ways.
Any small group that slights a big group can expect all their space reinforced in less than 30 minutes. By interceptors.
So the future of Sov warfare is inteceptor with sov lasers, slippery petes to kill interceptors, and absolutely no fleet on fleet fighting. Make the Entosis Link a bastion/siege module. Immobile, but with defensive bonuses. Fitting requirements for battlecruiser and above. Welcome hordes of triple plated triple repped abaddons... battleship combat ensues. The most boring kind of battleship combat imaginable. Congratulations, you've just decided every alliance's doctrines for the next five years until CCP admits there's a problem.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1055
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:47:41 -
[3123] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:The current plan will cater to a younger audience who are playing FPS capture the flag games. The older SOV players will get tired of yet another little skirmish in yet another system. Welcome to Low Sec 2.0 On the surface that might be true. But the real truth is that that 'younger audience' has the attention span of a brain damaged goldfish where as the types of people who inhabit null now (and who can mentally and emotionally endure the structure grind environment of the current sov system) will be able to deal with situation of the new system in the longer run.. We have already discussed plans that do not involve SOV space in our future. We have also talked with other coalitions and it looks like the smaller ones will disappear as a demonstration of how awful these mechanics are.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1493
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:49:50 -
[3124] - Quote
iP0D wrote:The irony is that top down systems like this won't meet those goals by default, because in spite of innate extensibility and an initial period of adaptation (which is different from shake up) you will see that the behavioural aspects of group dynamics have not been changed (logically, since that's a bottom up dynamic, not top down) so after a little while you end up playing (again) for time till the next system ends up in a status quo post ante (as it's called). Leaving you to throw away all the work having to once again come up with a new system, since nothing you can come up with under top down constraints can truly address rooted behavioural triggers.
Virt, right?
Do you ever speak any language other than Boardroom? What are "the behavioural aspects of group dynamics?" Which "rooted behavioural triggers?" I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that your point is hidden behind your verbiage.
What is status quo post ante? The way it is after the way it was?
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:(I am just picturing the entire Verite sov-map going black, as it someone turned off the lights. That thought alone should worry people).
Why should it?
What's interesting is not merely that you can muster an effort to do that periodically, but what happens afterward. A hard reset on the Dominion sov could actually be beneficial--though I assume that in "turning the map black" you are implicitly excluding your own holdings.
And that's assuming that you can do it. I don't doubt that large swaths of little-used sov will go black, which is the point, but with 20-40 minutes per system to respond in systems that people actually live in, I don't know that the whole map will.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1051
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:50:23 -
[3125] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok? Someone got links to these?
They're.....ya know......something something soon something...
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1605
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:50:36 -
[3126] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:The current plan will cater to a younger audience who are playing FPS capture the flag games. The older SOV players will get tired of yet another little skirmish in yet another system.
Welcome to Low Sec 2.0 On the surface that might be true. But the real truth is that that 'younger audience' has the attention span of a brain damaged goldfish where as the types of people who inhabit null now (and who can mentally and emotionally endure the structure grind environment of the current sov system) will be able to deal with situation of the new system in the longer run. That also illustrates the problem with this sov system, it's Faction warfare 2.0, small gang 'penny packet' gangs and solo hunters will be the order of the day. That's great if you live in low sec and have a 'boxer/gladiator mentality', but sucks if you're a 'soldier' type that actually found fleet warfare interesting (fun is too strong a word).\ Imposing a low sec/FW syle of play on null sec...when actual low sec/FW exists is not the smartest development idea I've ever experienced. If null had to change, making it more like wormhole space would have been more interesting that making it like FW. Jenn, you are right that the current playerbase, is likely to have a good attention span in null and wh space (other areas too) but I would like to point out that this new sovereignty mechanic is in two parts. Sure the first may seem very orbit the button in small ships at first glance, and like FW escalate a little.
The second phase, actual capture, though is a very different matter, this gives all the opportunities, of big fleets, caps, and all the rest. The only difference is it does not demand it every time, and is picked according to tactical decisions at the time, not just because you need the big stuff to structure grind.
In this it is very like the best of wormhole space.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:51:58 -
[3127] - Quote
Blackfangg wrote: Ok you seem very intelligent and that makes me happy, I wish people were reading this better and thinking more rationally like you, me, and the rare other few. But i have a few questions/thoughts on your opinion.
#1: If a system is only high index from a "Fast Grind" and that alone, then it probably isnt lived in, and shouldn't be yours.(potentially didnt understand what you meant here)
#2: Ok now im kinda wondering if you actually read it as well....They cant pick at your structure in your worst TZ....Only in the 4 hours you choose. And if you own 25 systems and live in them all, then you should be able to get 3-6 people in RLM Cerb/Tengu and Hyena/Lokis/Intys of your own online for atleast 4 hours, and if you dont have those that, then you dont own 25 systems.
#3 If they have managed to reinforce 25 systems then you deserve to lose it, 40mins AFTER the warning that EVERYONE gets and no one has shown up? Then ya, shouldnt be yours. Remember: This should be during your 4 hours that you have the most people online. If you dont have enough people to cover the systems then you dont need them.
#4: Ok if you live in null, and your alliance owns systems, you should have PLENTY of ships. I have my ships at my required staging system when on deployments of course, but I keep 10 of every fleet fit frig, 5 of every cruiser, 2 of each BC, and 2 of each BS in my HOME station (Plus atleast 4 of every T2/T3 I can fly, and ammo for everything). In case someday we get attacked en mass. I Literally could live off the stuff in my home station for, weeks if not months of fighting. And I have plenty of ores/mins/salvage to make more if I need them. So if you dont have enough ships...well...rat/mine more. Station flipping thing, at least now you actually have the chance to get stuff out of a lost station (Looking at you Solar and N3) And about the serious attempt. Of course you have to defend you space if someone wants it!!! THATS THE POINT. And if you cant get people to play during your MOST ACTIVE TIME then again, you should lose it.
#5 Well then go, plenty of us left here that will kill your rats, but having an Alt in FW or a WH isnt a bad idea, I have one, its for when I get bored of the empire and just want to hunt lowsec/WHs.
#6 But this isnt possible, if you have 100 people in your corp, and a alliance of 15000 decided they want your space, then its not gonna be yours anymore. They cant make it that way without ruining the game. Because if i couldn't bring a fleet of 1000 with a mix of Supers/Caps/BS/Cruisers/Frigates and beat your 100man alliance flying Tengus, then I'd leave this game because it would be pointless. Whats the point of having a corp at all if you can't have power/safety in numbers? If numbers were ever made to not matter, then EVE would become that themepark MMO everyone talks about.
#7 This is agree with, I think there are things that could be changed, such as maybe a 100km T2 ELink or degrading Strat Index. But I don't think this is a bad first step towards a better EVE, without millions on HP between me and that R-64 over there. Stuffs gonna get crazy after the patch but I believe a year or two from now we will look back and be like "What was I so mad about" Go back and look at how people said splitting Destroyers/Battlecruisers and everything into Racial Destroyer/BC was going to ruin the game and make it too hard to fly things. Or when they nerfed speeds. Or even WH space (Ya a lot of people thought it was dumb, go read the old posts.) I think CCP really should look hard at player opinions, but also there are so many people to please in this game. Its impossible to make them all happy.
-BlackFangg
Yep, my bad on the 4h prime time, thought it's working more like the current POS system where instead of stronting you now get to choose the out-of-RF time by setting. But this is going to limit most of 0.0 campaigns to enemies within your TZ, if you mark up the TZ time frame you might end up with my initially posted scenario.
I agree that empires are going to drop as much sov as they can, focusing on ihubs and stations, tcu's wherever they need it for boni - which can be a good thing but I don't see the difference in dead unused space or poorly used sov space. I agree with changes to the Entosis range and the general idea to get away from millions of EHP to chew through. Although you could incorporate a system that uses medium sized structures or a certain number of links to be applied until reinforcing works - that would require the attacker to bring at least a certain group of guys, something that's worth fighting and enforces teamplay. Then I'd also limit the nodes to 3-5 per structure, this is going to split up the fleets anyway and would not be as time consuming as 10+ nodes for each structure. I'd also factor in a kind of timer that automatically "regenerates" the rf mode if nobody shows up to actually claim the space.
About the station - you got me wrong there. I think if you can flip a station like this and dock up as enemy after the first timer, it's way easier to keep your enemy from evacuating, which is going to hurt forward deployments and the willingness of players to stack more than 2-3 doctrines in a major system. Just saying, the easier you make it to flip sov in comparison to the effort put in, the less likely it is that people are going to risk assets (like me having a dread, slowcat and t3s + support ships + fun stuff).
I welcome any change that breaks the current meta and coalitions, I just don't see how these changes are supposed to do this besides downsizing on what space you actually deem worth to pay for / defend. The same blue donut is still going to be around to wipe you off the map if they feel like it and there's no reason to reset anybody who could just be a good neighbour and one less border to worry about. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
842
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:52:52 -
[3128] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:The current plan will cater to a younger audience who are playing FPS capture the flag games. The older SOV players will get tired of yet another little skirmish in yet another system.
Welcome to Low Sec 2.0 On the surface that might be true. But the real truth is that that 'younger audience' has the attention span of a brain damaged goldfish where as the types of people who inhabit null now (and who can mentally and emotionally endure the structure grind environment of the current sov system) will be able to deal with situation of the new system in the longer run. That also illustrates the problem with this sov system, it's Faction warfare 2.0, small gang 'penny packet' gangs and solo hunters will be the order of the day. That's great if you live in low sec and have a 'boxer/gladiator mentality', but sucks if you're a 'soldier' type that actually found fleet warfare interesting (fun is too strong a word).\ Imposing a low sec/FW syle of play on null sec...when actual low sec/FW exists is not the smartest development idea I've ever experienced. If null had to change, making it more like wormhole space would have been more interesting that making it like FW.
Not necessarily. You still have the OPTION to bring massive armadas to contest RFs (and since it is a race to 10 - why would you not?).
Sure, it's not one big blob (less tidi, yay!) but 5-10 with individual field commanders, however it is clear that even with these changes, holding the field is 100% essential.
So if people want to keep that style of warfare - they absolutely can. In fact, they probably will. Nothing beats huge numbers and a dedicated effort.
Big, huge fights aren't going anywhere - albeit they will be slightly more spread and may allow for more 3rd party interference. It will required better tactical thinking from the respective primary FCs. Proper stratagems in place - do you split the armada? Do you maintain one huge powerful fleet and sent skirmishers to tied up the other points until the main force arrives? There are a lot of options here.
The only thing that has really died is TiDi'ing a single node to death and a monster blob and a monster grind out.
Field command and control remains the #1 priority if you want to keep OR take sov.
RFs are different, sure - but that's fine. As stated, 5 guys can blitz an uncontested defend in half an hour - 5 guys repping a structure today..../puke.
For me, this lowers the entry bar to spark a fight, but the fights that matter? They're going to be very similar to todays fights. It also lowers the barrier to take sov if people wont defend it correctly - again that's fine too. People WANTING to take sov from people who WANT to keep it are still going to trigger huge fights. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1055
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:56:17 -
[3129] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok? Someone got links to these? They're.....ya know......something something soon something... He could at least tell us that wants the weekend to go away and have a good hard think about the feedback rather than appear to have it slip his mind for two days.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:58:10 -
[3130] - Quote
While the constellation based capture mechanic might give CCPs servers a break, it's still trading one system that favors massive numbers for another, the winner is going to be the side that can bring a cast of thousands and control multiple grids simultaneously, and/or keep a constant stream of link fitted ships coming, so, the only way for small entities to "win" will be to harass the defenders until they simply get tired of defending and give up. Then your prize for all that effort is becoming the defender yourself.
If you make light fast ships able to run the link, it's going to make escalation to larger ships a lot less likely. If it'll be possible for the link ships to speed-tank a BS-backed by triage fleet, there'll be little motivation to bring such fleets, or the super-cap fleets that would be the counter to them. These fights will come down to grid control by hac-logi style fleets defending the speedy link-runners. Sure, someone could try the "defend it with a Titan" approach as a hail mary if they aren't able to control the grid with sub-caps, inviting a counter-drop, but I think that'll be highly unlikely, given how easy it'll be to flip the system back.
The only real loss with this mechanic will be loss of a pimped I-Hub, but, since they are now decoupled from sov, I'd imagine that the landlords of Eve are already drafting "bring your own i-hub" rental agreements as we speak.
All in all, though, if you view 0.0 as a place to fight, you should be loving this change. If you don't want the PITA of being the sov-holding defender, your ability force fights from those who are without having to bring a super-cap fleet that would get steamrolled just got a big buff. If your reason for taking sov is to invite fights, you likewise just got a buff to your play style.
If your reason for taking sov is to bear it up in the safety of an ocean of blue to be able to afford a war machine to build an even bigger ocean of blue, there's a lot to hate here. Your play style just got hammered. |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10108
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:58:52 -
[3131] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:The current plan will cater to a younger audience who are playing FPS capture the flag games. The older SOV players will get tired of yet another little skirmish in yet another system. Welcome to Low Sec 2.0 On the surface that might be true. But the real truth is that that 'younger audience' has the attention span of a brain damaged goldfish where as the types of people who inhabit null now (and who can mentally and emotionally endure the structure grind environment of the current sov system) will be able to deal with situation of the new system in the longer run.. We have already discussed plans that do not involve SOV space in our future. We have also talked with other coalitions and it looks like the smaller ones will disappear as a demonstration of how awful these mechanics are.
To a certin extent, others will replace them. Hell, I envision some FW powers making the transistion to sov null since they will be familiar with that kind of game play already.
But yea, in the end, it's going to be bad. 'Dominion' bad (for the same reasons, not knowing the intended audience). 'Removing both CONCORD and local from high sec and expecting high sec players to just deal with it' bad lol.
I was just listening to the EVE down under podcast and when Fozzie stated the goals as (paraphrasing) "being able to end the stagnation and go out there and take some space" I just shook my head (rest assured, though you can't see it, hy head shake was very forlorn, would have brought a tear to your eyes, i promise ).
But in the end, most of us will probably adapt to it, and brave it out for the average 6 years it takes for a new sov system that is worse than the current one to be thought up. 2021 her we come
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
842
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:04:09 -
[3132] - Quote
davet517 wrote:While the constellation based capture mechanic might give CCPs servers a break, it's still trading one system that favors massive numbers for another, the winner is going to be the side that can bring a cast of thousands and control multiple grids simultaneously, and/or keep a constant stream of link fitted ships coming, so, the only way for small entities to "win" will be to harass the defenders until they simply get tired of defending and give up. Then your prize for all that effort is becoming the defender yourself.
If you make light fast ships able to run the link, it's going to make escalation to larger ships a lot less likely. If it'll be possible for the link ships to speed-tank a BS-backed by triage fleet, there'll be little motivation to bring such fleets, or the super-cap fleets that would be the counter to them. These fights will come down to grid control by hac-logi style fleets defending the speedy link-runners. Sure, someone could try the "defend it with a Titan" approach as a hail mary if they aren't able to control the grid with sub-caps, inviting a counter-drop, but I think that'll be highly unlikely, given how easy it'll be to flip the system back.
The only real loss with this mechanic will be loss of a pimped I-Hub, but, since they are now decoupled from sov, I'd imagine that the landlords of Eve are already drafting "bring your own i-hub" rental agreements as we speak.
All in all, though, if you view 0.0 as a place to fight, you should be loving this change. If you don't want the PITA of being the sov-holding defender, your ability force fights from those who are without having to bring a super-cap fleet that would get steamrolled just got a big buff. If your reason for taking sov is to invite fights, you likewise just got a buff to your play style.
If your reason for taking sov is to bear it up in the safety of an ocean of blue to be able to afford a war machine to build an even bigger ocean of blue, there's a lot to hate here. Your play style just got hammered.
Agree with all save one part - people are forgetting the drawbacks of the link mods and that the targets are (essentially) broadcast. In THIS situation speed isn't worth a damn vs missiles, anaemic DPS is not relevant in the absence of reps or being able to warp out. You slap a handful of ravens or HML cerbs on field, defensive links of your own and the enemy speed linkers are going to have a very tough time staying alive. You are then free to engage the main fleet body - who, of course will be doing the same to you. Point is, all the fleet comps today will be viable. Frankly, in these kinds of fights I expect two things - EVERYONE with a slot having a link and marauders seeing use to be super heavy linkers with bastion to tank stupendous incoming dps.
As I posted a minute or so ago - serious contests are going to be fought tooth and nail for absolutely field supremacy - just like today. |
Duffyman
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:04:12 -
[3133] - Quote
For me, Sov should be easier than it is, but it should also be for those that are committed to it. If 100 ceptors can reff a region in a few hours, every sov holder (big and small) will burn out really soon, even if the prime time settings are changed periodically.
In my view, the current design is not so bad, but at least make the sov laser have some heavier requirements. I read someone suggesting Command Ships and think this is a good idea. Maybe T1 Sov lasers in battlecruisers and T2 Sov lasers for Command Ships... that would also give some purpose to a forgotten class of ships. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
843
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:13:10 -
[3134] - Quote
They've simply gave us the tools - if we're not capable to using them properly.....that's as much on us as them. |
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:13:19 -
[3135] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:For me, Sov should be easier than it is, but it should also be for those that are committed to it. If 100 ceptors can reff a region in a few hours, every sov holder (big and small) will burn out really soon, even if the prime time settings are changed periodically.
100 ceptors cannot reff a region in a few hours if the region is occupied by people.
Plz stop with this falsy argument.
Duffyman wrote: In my view, the current design is not so bad, but at least make the sov laser have some heavier requirements. I read someone suggesting Command Ships and think this is a good idea. Maybe T1 Sov lasers in battlecruisers and T2 Sov lasers for Command Ships... that would also give some purpose to a forgotten class of ships.
Only command ship is far too restrictive. Avoid it only on frig if you are scared by them. |
Sara Sirlanka
FireStar Inc Evictus.
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:14:07 -
[3136] - Quote
I think this entire thing needs to be scrapped and thrown away. We need to go back to the orginal sov system with some changes.
Chiefly you will use a new tower type that can only be used to take sov. The new tower will have no power grid or cpu, so you can't anchor anything to it, it is sctricly for taking sov. It will have build in uniform resist. With around a Large towers shields/armor maybe a bit more. It will also have no force field so people can not hide inside it. The fuel cost will be much higher then a large tower. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:14:48 -
[3137] - Quote
Quote: Agree with all save one part - people are forgetting the drawbacks of the link mods and that the targets are (essentially) broadcast. In THIS situation speed isn't worth a damn vs missiles, anaemic DPS is not relevant in the absence of reps or being able to warp out. You slap a handful of ravens or HML cerbs on field, defensive links of your own and the enemy speed linkers are going to have a very tough time staying alive. You are then free to engage the main fleet body - who, of course will be doing the same to you. Point is, all the fleet comps today will be viable. Frankly, in these kinds of fights I expect two things - EVERYONE with a slot having a link and marauders seeing use to be super heavy linkers with bastion to tank stupendous incoming dps.
As I posted a minute or so ago - serious contests are going to be fought tooth and nail for absolutely field supremacy - just like today.
My point wasn't that there is no counter to them, it was that you'll have no reason to counter them with anything that would invite an escalation to caps and supers. You'll counter them with HACs, just as you said, and the defenders will counter your hac and logis with hacs and logis. Escalating to bigger ships will be unnecessary, and probably unwise for the most part.
In a perverse way, this somewhat negates the travel restrictions that were just introduced. Defenders will just start building hac/logi stashes around their space now for defense, and JC to them when necessary.
I'm concerned that these changes bring us to the verge of marginalizing caps and supers to the point that they are only ever used to contest high-end moons, or force a cap-fight by assaulting someone's high-end moon.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10108
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:16:34 -
[3138] - Quote
davet517 wrote:
All in all, though, if you view 0.0 as a place to fight, you should be loving this change.
There are different kinds of fights. I like the fights I participate in in null. I can't stand what goes on in Faction Warfare which is why I left in 2010 and didn't come back for 3 years. Nothing wrong with small gang and solo/'dudes trying hard to catch you in a plex or mission' and system/tier ping ponging, but it's not for me.
And here comes a system that greatly favors a different kind of fighting and that *may or may not* escalate to something i might enjoy a bit. Which is all good, no one is paying my to live in null, and I've always wanted to live in a wormhole (looks like June is that chance lol).
But, as the guy who is fond of linking this 4 year old dev blog every chance I get to remind people what faulty thinking looks like, you BEST believe that you all will be seeing links to this 'discussion' from time to time after June |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
844
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:17:37 -
[3139] - Quote
I suppose that depends how much you want the save/kill.
I should say I'm setting aside the relative uselessness of BS in this - that hasn't been made worse by this but isnt improve either. If we could get back to the triangle of HAC/BC/BS type food chain, things would get a lot more interesting. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1055
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:23:03 -
[3140] - Quote
afkalt wrote:[Agree with all save one part - people are forgetting the drawbacks of the link mods and that the targets are (essentially) broadcast. . Okay chaps, listen up, this is the plan:
I want 75 of you in each of three systems for a total of 25 per SOV structure. Now as to the other 100 of you, I want you to go and lock onto all the other SOV structures in interceptors, if you see three of your pals in one of their systems move on to the next one. Wait for my "Go signal" for maximum chaos.
Tigger everything at the same time, every time.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10109
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:28:22 -
[3141] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:afkalt wrote:[Agree with all save one part - people are forgetting the drawbacks of the link mods and that the targets are (essentially) broadcast. . Okay chaps, listen up, this is the plan: I want 75 of you in each of three systems for a total of 25 per SOV structure. Now as to the other 100 of you, I want you to go and lock onto all the other SOV structures in interceptors, if you see three of your pals in one of their systems move on to the next one. Wait for my "Go signal" for maximum chaos. Tigger everything at the same time, every time.
You should have done that in 'Mittani Voice' for maximum effect Oh wait he doesn't actually play, ok , DBRB voice then.
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:32:40 -
[3142] - Quote
davet517 wrote:While the constellation based capture mechanic might give CCPs servers a break, it's still trading one system that favors massive numbers for another, the winner is going to be the side that can bring a cast of thousands and control multiple grids simultaneously, and/or keep a constant stream of link fitted ships coming, so, the only way for small entities to "win" will be to harass the defenders until they simply get tired of defending and give up. Then your prize for all that effort is becoming the defender yourself.
If you make light fast ships able to run the link, it's going to make escalation to larger ships a lot less likely. If it'll be possible for the link ships to speed-tank a BS-backed by triage fleet, there'll be little motivation to bring such fleets, or the super-cap fleets that would be the counter to them. These fights will come down to grid control by hac-logi style fleets defending the speedy link-runners. Sure, someone could try the "defend it with a Titan" approach as a hail mary if they aren't able to control the grid with sub-caps, inviting a counter-drop, but I think that'll be highly unlikely, given how easy it'll be to flip the system back.
The only real loss with this mechanic will be loss of a pimped I-Hub, but, since they are now decoupled from sov, I'd imagine that the landlords of Eve are already drafting "bring your own i-hub" rental agreements as we speak.
All in all, though, if you view 0.0 as a place to fight, you should be loving this change. If you don't want the PITA of being the sov-holding defender, your ability force fights from those who are without having to bring a super-cap fleet that would get steamrolled just got a big buff. If your reason for taking sov is to invite fights, you likewise just got a buff to your play style.
If your reason for taking sov is to bear it up in the safety of an ocean of blue to be able to afford a war machine to build an even bigger ocean of blue, there's a lot to hate here. Your play style just got hammered.
This. Though massive numbers will always be favored. If they were not then ccp has restrained the sandbox and our choice to group together. That isnt their role, but Dominion sov so greatly favored large numbers that coalitions HAD to form. When reading the goals and principles behind the proposed mechanics I interpret them to mean that even small alliances can challenge sov-holding over a constellation or systems.
One large coalitons **** system is a small alliances treasure. Being smaller also means that expense level is greatly reduced. Being smart about alliance income generation is possible, there are other income models in nullsec than moongoo and being a slumlord.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
282
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:35:44 -
[3143] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:afkalt wrote:[Agree with all save one part - people are forgetting the drawbacks of the link mods and that the targets are (essentially) broadcast. . Okay chaps, listen up, this is the plan: I want 75 of you in each of three systems for a total of 25 per SOV structure. Now as to the other 100 of you, I want you to go and lock onto all the other SOV structures in interceptors, if you see three of your pals in one of their systems move on to the next one. Wait for my "Go signal" for maximum chaos. Tigger everything at the same time, every time. Now lets just use 600 total altss and make CFC respond in every single one of their systems at the same time |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:37:47 -
[3144] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
There are different kinds of fights. I like the fights I participate in in null. I can't stand what goes on in Faction Warfare which is why I left in 2010 and didn't come back for 3 years. Nothing wrong with small gang and solo/'dudes trying hard to catch you in a plex or mission' and system/tier ping ponging, but it's not for me.
Yes, I agree. I don't see a reliable escalation path here. When these fights do escalate, it'll be because of a mistake, often as not. I also agree that it's going to make 0.0 more like the constant struggle that you see in FW. More like, but not exactly like. Distance will play a part here when you're not fighting in a system that's 4 jumps from Jita.
Still, fights are better than no fights, and stasis. The game has reached stasis - i.e. the current dominion mechanics have played themselves out, and this is what we got - two big coalitions and their hired guns controlling the map.
Will this change that? It can, but only if the change in mechanics bring a corresponding change in behavior. Will people still be motivated to belong to big coalitions with these mechanics? It's hard to say with certainty. I'll take some time to play out. If people are determined to hold the "blue donut" together, they will, regardless of the mechanics. If people see their chance to break it up here, and change their behavior, we're in for interesting times. What the players do with these mechanics will be more interesting than the mechanics themselves. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
526
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:39:09 -
[3145] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Finally caught up with the thread. :) .... I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok?
Still patiently awaiting these breakout threads 36+ hours later...
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6357
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:44:25 -
[3146] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arrendis wrote: Once again: There is not, and in all of human history never has been a problem that cannot be solved better using the application of more brainpower.
Cancer?
The medical industrial complex won't let us find the cause because the "cures" bring in billions in profits. Finding the cause is not profitable.
It's been fun watching you do a 180 on every ideal you have projected over other subjects. Here you are being against people playing the game when in the justification of ganking hapless freighters in hisec you are all about playing the game and HTFU.
Goes to show that, in the usual ways of Western society now, all rhetoric is "freedom and boons for me and not for thee" and anything meta to achieve is (like swaying a system your way instead of using your own brains) acceptable.
It's good at least knowing that all Church of HTFU dogma is as false as I assumed it to be. If the goons and their cast of 90K alts manage to pressure these changes into such a watered down state as to maintain the status quo, this game will continue to be "that game" that more people try than play. You will pretend you love the game when in the end it's all about sitting on piles of ISK just like any hisec miner who refused to fit a tank.
Hopefully CCP maintains their tendency for Viking level stubbornness and sticks to their guns. People will cry and say "they want profit!" and that means more people playing. Companies exist to make a profit - actually they owe that to the people working for them (it's called responsibility). And making a profit appears to conflict with the aspergian min-maxing tendencies of a few players - or maybe a generation of players who do indeed need to be told HTFU.
(and thankfully CCP has appeared to change their advertising )
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1057
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:56:43 -
[3147] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:afkalt wrote:[Agree with all save one part - people are forgetting the drawbacks of the link mods and that the targets are (essentially) broadcast. . Okay chaps, listen up, this is the plan: I want 75 of you in each of three systems for a total of 25 per SOV structure. Now as to the other 100 of you, I want you to go and lock onto all the other SOV structures in interceptors, if you see three of your pals in one of their systems move on to the next one. Wait for my "Go signal" for maximum chaos. Tigger everything at the same time, every time. Now lets just use 600 total alts and make CFC respond in every single one of their systems at the same time Oh and only put cynos on 5 of them. CFC have the numbers to gate camp all the choke points. It is the smaller alliances in Null that will have all these small things swarming in and stinging them until they give up.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Daniel Westelius
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:57:52 -
[3148] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:What you are proposing is stagnation even worse than we have now: if I, as a small alliance, take a roaming gang through a WH during prime time to Catch looking for "good fights" or ratter ganks, nothing stops someone else from setting a bunch of horrible timers that anyone can third party. Why do you need to take your fleet through a WH to catch for pewpew during your primetime? Go put a simple highslot module on your neighbour's structure and make them come out and play with you whilst still remaining within defensive range of your own space. If they don't come out to play you make the system neutral and might get better neighbours move in afterwards.
Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol, Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough. What happens next? The answer? Nothing. Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems. Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly. So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow ! |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
796
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:00:16 -
[3149] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:[quote=davet517] All in all, though, if you view 0.0 as a place to fight, you should be loving this change. If you don't want the PITA of being the sov-holding defender, your ability force fights from those who are without having to bring a super-cap fleet that would get steamrolled just got a big buff. If your reason for taking sov is to invite fights, you likewise just got a buff to your play style.
I am a "defender". When I used to play RTS's as a kid, I used the map editors to set up vast castles full of troops with enemy spawn points all around, and played to see how long I lasted before the relentless horde pulled me down. That's fun to me. I've been a member of the CFC since it was formed, and I intend to be until the day it disbands. I've frequently said I look forward to the day our coalition is brought down in fire and wreckage, and that I'll be shovelling ships in to the furnace as we burn. It'll be glorious. But there is no furnace in this set-up, there are no Armageddon battles, just a wet depressing fart-sound as the air goes out. Its just all something of an anticlimax.
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:04:17 -
[3150] - Quote
Daniel Westelius wrote:
Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol, Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough. What happens next? The answer? Nothing. Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems. Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly. So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow !
Not so sure who is the ignorant one here. Have you actually left the TNT pockets in Deklein and Tribute and seen the wasteland that already exists in nullsec and even cfc space??? And its even worse elsewhere. The wasteland has been created by the large coalitions and what he says here drives conflict, maybe even in areas players actually could be bothered to travel to. |
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:05:48 -
[3151] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote: About the station - you got me wrong there. I think if you can flip a station like this and dock up as enemy after the first timer, it's way easier to keep your enemy from evacuating, which is going to hurt forward deployments and the willingness of players to stack more than 2-3 doctrines in a major system. Just saying, the easier you make it to flip sov in comparison to the effort put in, the less likely it is that people are going to risk assets (like me having a dread, slowcat and t3s + support ships + fun stuff).
Even today when station hits last RF timer there is little reason to panic and today it is relatively hard to flip stations. All it takes is a little patience for getting the stuff out. Today the most common approach is getting a alt in some entity blue to the new owners and evacuate the assets that way - often with the help of conquerors logistics services.
So unless people attacking your station are going to actually live in there it's a minor inconvenience as the station will be again a free-port within a week after they go away.
The attackers being able to dock in there is not that huge issue either. Whole NPC null is like that and people live in there just fine. On additional bonus aspect hobo-jamming was nerfed a little while ago.
Although under the new sov system it might perhaps be indeed reasonable to keep your assets a bit more spread out instead of putting all eggs in one basket. For example, MOA (or more precisely individual pilots/corporations) is keeping a number of stashes throughout the region as whenever we poke goons hard enough to **** them sufficiently off they try to "hellcamp" us for a week or two. Under such conditions you just shift 3j to the left, keep killing whoever is careless enough and eventually the campers lose vigilance and wander off and you move back in.
So yeah - attacker, if sufficiently stronger can lock you out of your station, however, it takes constant work on the attacker side to keep it that way.
It can be a bit hard to get used to at first when coming from traditional sov null but it is certainly not the end of the world.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:10:34 -
[3152] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Phig Neutron wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack. Interesting, so basically it will need the current renters to actually be part of the alliance that places the sovereignty units.well they are now, but what is in it for them? So in short the renters will be doing the job that they are currently paying rent for, the defence of their space. Will they be negotiating to be paid a fee rather than paying one? That could be a nice additional source of income, but I can see that that could prove unpopular with those losing an income stream and having to pay instead. But is that the cost of retaining sovereignty? No, basically "rent" will be replaced with "protection" fees -- good old fashioned racketeering. They will not be paying their hosts to protect them, but rather paying tribute to not be attacked. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
283
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:13:23 -
[3153] - Quote
Daniel Westelius wrote:Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol, Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough. What happens next? The answer? Nothing. Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems. Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly. So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow ! Ad hominem apart, you're admitting there will now be gaps in the donut for people to attempt to take sov without requiring supercaps?
And that the blocs will consolidate down into systems they actively use where they can keep the indices high and maintain a constant vigil themselves?
I've admitted from the start that the blocs will still throw their weight around but how many new mini alliances are going to appear in all these little patches of black that we can look forwards to?
Are some of the rental alliances going to do this as well since they don't need your supercap protection anymore?
What about your other big neighbours who will probably look at the map and define very similar areas as yourself when looking for somewhere for a condensed empire to reside now that sprawling ones are so susceptible to trololololing?
What's the difference between a wasteland with a flag in it and a wasteland without a flag in it? |
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
242
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:20:18 -
[3154] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: The 2 minute cycle time is too short, can be done at too long of a distance, and if it's available to frigates it does not give the defender any ability to respond to a pre-reinforced attack short of sitting on that structure literally all the time.
It's not a 2 minute cycle time to cap a structure. It's a 2 minute cycle time to start capturing it. Which is, IMO, is good idea, because if you only want to use the entosis link to force defenders to undock and get a fight, you don't have to spend half an hour for that. The question is, how long is the actual capture time. If it's about half an hour, the defender actively living in the same constellation (which seems to be the intent behind the proposed system) has all the time to pull out his own trollceptor, and block your capture until he can form up a proper defence fleet to clear out the ninjas (and no, it's not as impossible as some people running in little circles waving their hands and shouting make it out to seem).
Instead of using your own entosis link to pause his capture, just sensor damp him so he loses lock, and the whole thing should reset back to zero, right? |
Daniel Westelius
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:23:57 -
[3155] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:
Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol, Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough. What happens next? The answer? Nothing. Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems. Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly. So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow !
Not so sure who is the ignorant one here. Have you actually left the TNT pockets in Deklein and Tribute and seen the wasteland that already exists in nullsec and even cfc space??? And its even worse elsewhere. The wasteland has been created by the large coalitions and what he says here drives conflict, maybe even in areas players actually could be bothered to travel to.
I know there is wasteland already, this will create even more wasteland. You, like Eli Apol, seem to somehow miss the obvious. What drives conflict are incentives. Changing how sov is taken does NOT incentivize taking space. The only thing that can do that is to make null sec worth something, and currently, it's not worth much. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
284
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:24:51 -
[3156] - Quote
Gospadin wrote:Instead of using your own entosis link to pause his capture, just sensor damp him so he loses lock, and the whole thing should reset back to zero, right? Nope, it remains at it's captured percentage unless the defenders get a link of their own on grid, remove the attacking link and push it back down - it will also remain like this beyond the primetime if nothing is done about it. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
284
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:25:45 -
[3157] - Quote
Daniel Westelius wrote:I know there is wasteland already, this will create even more wasteland. You, like Eli Apol, seem to somehow miss the obvious. What drives conflict are incentives. Changing how sov is taken does NOT incentivize taking space. The only thing that can do that is to make null sec worth something, and currently, it's not worth much. So now you've got Freeport stations all around your busy PvE systems....can you see where this is going? |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10110
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:27:13 -
[3158] - Quote
Daniel Westelius wrote:Eli Apol wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:What you are proposing is stagnation even worse than we have now: if I, as a small alliance, take a roaming gang through a WH during prime time to Catch looking for "good fights" or ratter ganks, nothing stops someone else from setting a bunch of horrible timers that anyone can third party. Why do you need to take your fleet through a WH to catch for pewpew during your primetime? Go put a simple highslot module on your neighbour's structure and make them come out and play with you whilst still remaining within defensive range of your own space. If they don't come out to play you make the system neutral and might get better neighbours move in afterwards. Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol, Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough. What happens next? The answer? Nothing. Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems. Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly. So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow !
What I don't get is how people can't see tings like this coming.
In a game where people (hell the same people who make up the coalitions) go to high sec and blow expensive ships up for nothing but lulz (not even profit), some folks think that the coalitions are not only going to fall, but that somehow they will be powerless to prevent "small alliances" from taking sov in systems the coalitions can't defend?
Sigh.
This is what I said in earlier parts of this thread. The problem is that some people are unrealistically optimistic. And one thing I know about such people is that they have a hard time putting themselves in other (less optimistic, more opportunistic) type people.
What's really going to happen is that the coalitions are going to let people come in and take sov and plant ihubs. Then the coalitions are going to kill those. Or threaten to kill those. And if you don't pay a monthly fee...lets call it RENT even if we know it's actually 'extortion'...that coalition is going to jump 40 jumps every month to destroy their assets again and again until they say $%^& it and go back to high/low/WH space.
Those coalitions will protect the few systems they need to protect, and extort rent out the rest. Nothing will change, and people are going to get sick to death of me linking them this thread over and over.
|
Daniel Westelius
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:31:41 -
[3159] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol, Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough. What happens next? The answer? Nothing. Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems. Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly. So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow ! Ad hominem apart, you're admitting there will now be gaps in the donut for people to attempt to take sov without requiring supercaps? And that the blocs will consolidate down into systems they actively use where they can keep the indices high and maintain a constant vigil themselves? I've admitted from the start that the blocs will still throw their weight around but how many new mini alliances are going to appear in all these little patches of black that we can look forwards to? Are some of the rental alliances going to do this as well since they don't need your supercap protection anymore? What about your other big neighbours who will probably look at the map and define very similar areas as yourself when looking for somewhere for a condensed empire to reside now that sprawling ones are so susceptible to trololololing? What's the difference between a wasteland with a flag in it and a wasteland without a flag in it?
It was more stating fact than Ad Hominem, but take it as you like. Secondly, you are cherry picking from my comment, good job. You addressed the wasteland aspect of my comment (not in a coherent manner but to each his own) and then proceed to ignore the part where I state that no one will live in those empty pockets. If you think the established alliances will allow any small alliance to grab a foothold anywhere near their space you really are being delusional. As I said previously, there might be wasteland right now, but this will only create more wasteland. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:33:14 -
[3160] - Quote
Gospadin wrote: Instead of using your own entosis link to pause his capture, just sensor damp him so he loses lock, and the whole thing should reset back to zero, right?
1) It's not given that active entosis ships will be susceptible to ewar. Might be like bastion. Then again, might be like hictors. 2) It's paused, not reset. |
|
Redbull Spai
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:38:16 -
[3161] - Quote
T2 is supposed to provide a small but noticiable bonus over T1. Not 10 TIMES the power.
Also, both types of link should be restricted to BS or higher. Possibly BC+, but no lower. Eve needs battleships returning to the fore, the recent tiericide buffed T1 cruisers, frigs, HACs, industrials, mining barges,interceptors - but gave nothing but hate to battleships (slower warp speed, no protection from inties using bubbles, far more expensive - three times the cost in the case of Phoons and Domis, no extra abilities for tier 2 BS's even though tier 2 cruisers/frigs got huge extra bonuses, no extra mid/lowslots, no extra cargobays, no extra warp strength, ect). Also dreadnoughts need a buff too, thier primary purpose was always as the main sov-capturing ship when sov depended on POS's but now they seem out on a limb.
I'd put this suggestion forward, for entosis link capture time:
Battle Ship - Standard Speed
Battlecruiser, Carrier, Super, Titan - 1/3 Speed
Dread Nought - Double Speed |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1057
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:39:05 -
[3162] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote: But there is no furnace in this set-up, there are no Armageddon battles, just a wet depressing fart-sound as the air goes out. Its just all something of an anticlimax.
Not to mention the inherent satisfaction of shooting their structures; being gone.
"I wave my magic wand at you! Appear and fight me scoundrel!" "No thanks. You are the 1000th guy with a wand this week. Already moved most of my things to stations that can't be magic'ed away."
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
184
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:39:18 -
[3163] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:For only 5 ISK a day, you can help sponsor Special Eddie. Eddie was diagnosed with Entosis at the age of five, after his parents noticed they were unable to hold his attention for more than 5 minutes at a time. Initially, from two months of age, his parents suspected that Eddie suffered from ADHD or Asperger's Syndrome, but Ritalin did nothing to improve his condition. He is currently fifteen years old and suffers from late-stage Entosis, characterized by sporadic responsiveness, usually within a four-hour window each evening. Eddie requires occasional laser treatment to restore his basic bodily functions. Eddie also requires dialysis.
Poor Eddie. I feel bad for the lil bee.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
284
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:40:37 -
[3164] - Quote
The coalitions aren't going to die, no-one afaik has even hinted at that, shrink and condense, definitely, fracture, perhaps.
Goons go to highsec to gank unarmed carebears because they have to jump 40 jumps to find content in null so it's easier to just use their gankalyst alt to find some easy pewpew (and they make outrageous profits from some of it, never believe they don't).
As they'll probably only hold systems with high indices from high activity, that leaves busy systems with ships regularly undocked PvEing right next to neutral systems potentially with freeport stations available - for absolutely any merc or hostile force to use for staging regular pvp roams into nullbear wonderland next door.
Now a sensible PvP group will flip that station/system to be their own, ie have their own tiny bit of sov right next to their borders so that whichever Blue Donut Alliance it is has to subsequently capture it twice over a period of 8 days to lock them away from their ships...at which point it's now a weakly held Blue Donut system... which will get flipped.... which means the PvPers have their staging system again... ad infinitum.... |
Daniel Westelius
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:41:11 -
[3165] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:I know there is wasteland already, this will create even more wasteland. You, like Eli Apol, seem to somehow miss the obvious. What drives conflict are incentives. Changing how sov is taken does NOT incentivize taking space. The only thing that can do that is to make null sec worth something, and currently, it's not worth much. So now you've got Freeport stations all around your busy PvE systems....can you see where this is going?
I can't be bothered to keep responding to such ignorant comments, so this will probably be the last. The stations are only Freeport for a 48 hour period. Unless you expect the new owners to set it as a Freeport and also assume that the established alliances will let it remain as such. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
184
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:43:55 -
[3166] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Dead serious, Goons or NC. Could get the 70 guys, but my alliance wouldnt be able to. Hell, back when I was in INK when i first got out of highsec we couldnt pry people away from their anoms long enough to run vanguards.
Small alliances wouldnt be able to fght off an incusion.
That's not entirely true - choosing not to fight off an incursion because of :reasons: is not the same as lacking the ability to do so.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
284
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:44:43 -
[3167] - Quote
Daniel Westelius wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:I know there is wasteland already, this will create even more wasteland. You, like Eli Apol, seem to somehow miss the obvious. What drives conflict are incentives. Changing how sov is taken does NOT incentivize taking space. The only thing that can do that is to make null sec worth something, and currently, it's not worth much. So now you've got Freeport stations all around your busy PvE systems....can you see where this is going? I can't be bothered to keep responding to such ignorant comments, so this will probably be the last. The stations are only Freeport for a 48 hour period. Unless you expect the new owners to set it as a Freeport and also assume that the established alliances will let it remain as such. Please see post above, PvPers will be able to take sov right under your noses and give themselves a staging post on a week by week basis right next to your PvE hubs.
If you take away the Freeport status, they just flip it straight back again - or the one next door - or the one next door but one - or all of the ones around your whole border every week.
Sov won't just be held by carebears, you can get mercs taking and holding it on a completely impermanent basis without whelping a supercap fleet every time. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
290
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:49:31 -
[3168] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:And if you don't pay a monthly fee...lets call it RENT even if we know it's actually 'extortion'...
Really, when has rent ever been anything else? 'Give me money or I kick you out of where you live'. Much as the sov discussion, ownership of land/buildings/territory is ever really just a tug-of-war between those who use that space, and those who demand money to not prevent its use. |
Blackfangg
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:50:01 -
[3169] - Quote
I still think this mechanic will be a good thing for null sov but it will take work to be perfect, and CCP knows that. Thats why we get the dev blog 4 months beforehand and two weeks before Fanfest. So everyone can discuss it and throw our opinions on the forums. Whatever you may believe CCP does try to listen, even if Fozzie can be a little hard headed hes still taking a chance and making a change to the current broken system, and that takes some balls, respect.
And obviously this isnt a patch note, its a dev blog, so I believe theres a good chance 50% of this stuff will change based on feedback from us and CSM. CCP doesnt want to kill EVE, this game makes sure their families stay warm in the Iceland winters, and makes it so their kids can go to bed with a full stomach. I'd think they'd really rather keep in going.
BUT, there are some changes I hope happen:
#1: Make the initial time needed ELinking to start the RF longer. (IMO somewhere around 30mins for unused sov to 1hr for high index systems.)
#1.5: Make ELinks unable to be fit to anything smaller than a Cruiser.
#2: Keep the PrimeTZ mechanic to a degree, but expand it. (My opinion: 12 hours, to allow for some degree of X-Timezone play.)
#3: Make ownership of a Ihub or TCU give a bonus of 10-15% to moon goo harvest remove the fuel bonus, this gives a reason to hold sov. without too big of a bonus (But enough to fight for)
#3.5: Also require sov for building of Supercapital ships?
#4: Spawning 5 command nodes at a time might be too much, consider doing 2 nodes at +0 hours, 3 at +1hrs, 5 at +3hrs, then continue increasing as you already have planned it too.
#5: Have kills by your corp/alliance affect Military Index, and players making items affect the Industry Index.
#6: ELinks should either negatively affect your DPS/Range/Speed, or be quite expensive (200mil-750mil) so idiots dont fly around RFing everyone for the lulz.
#7: Instead of #1 or #5 you could make TCUs and IHubs have guns, the higher the Index the better CPU/PG your SovStructure has. Maybe allow all POS modules to fit TCUs and IHUBs. This would allow small pirate fleets to harrass underused space or conquer empty space easily, but would require decent numbers to affect a large active alliance that actually uses their space.
#8: Make Development Index Level degrade over time, 1 level for every week the system doesnt hit a certain quota (XX Billion ISK in bounties/ XX m3 of Ore/ Strategic could be tricky, maybe a certain # of JB jumps (Stupid) or maybe this one should just stay the same.)
#9: For initial Command Node fight, after RF but before Freeport, only the alliance that RF'd the structure should be able to ELink it. Its should be a 1 side vs 1 side fight with allies helping blap stuff only. That way you can still kill renters while keeping a fair system.
#10: Give BS/BC an edge in this, maybe a 50% reduction in cycle time for ELinks after the first one? So they have a chance for someone else to ELink it while they coast out of link mode to recieve RRs? Thereby making them inherently useful again! Yay!
These are just thoughts, as I understand a lot of this stuff will change anyways. If anyone from CCP actually reads this, please know that I think you are doing a good job and to Fozzie, Respect. Takes some courage to uproot the entire way of life for NulSec, and honestly anythings better than Structure Grinds. (Even module grinds) just listen to the players that arn't bitching and youll do well. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
290
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:50:58 -
[3170] - Quote
Daniel Westelius wrote:The stations are only Freeport for a 48 hour period. Unless you expect the new owners to set it as a Freeport and also assume that the established alliances will let it remain as such.
No, Daniel, he's suggesting that the equilibrium resting state of those stations will be ownerless, because whenever someone comes in and claims it, we'll just burn it down again. |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10113
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:52:42 -
[3171] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:The coalitions aren't going to die, no-one afaik has even hinted at that, shrink and condense, definitely, fracture, perhaps.
Goons go to highsec to gank unarmed carebears because they have to jump 40 jumps to find content in null so it's easier to just use their gankalyst alt to find some easy pewpew (and they make outrageous profits from some of it, never believe they don't).
THERE it is. The bias underlying the unreasonable point of view. You think thatpeople are so bored that THAT makes them take the time to make ganking alts?
They aren't bored when they do that, that's who they ARE. And who they are are the people who are going to crush any 'small guys' who come in, just because they can.
Quote: As they'll probably only hold systems with high indices from high activity, that leaves busy systems with ships regularly undocked PvEing right next to neutral systems potentially with freeport stations available - for absolutely any merc or hostile force to use for staging regular pvp roams into nullbear wonderland next door.
Now a sensible PvP group will flip that station/system to be their own, ie have their own tiny bit of sov right next to their borders so that whichever Blue Donut Alliance it is has to subsequently capture it twice over a period of 8 days to lock them away from their ships...at which point it's now a weakly held Blue Donut system... which will get flipped.... which means the PvPers have their staging system again... ad infinitum....
Bookmarked. See you in july lol.
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:53:39 -
[3172] - Quote
Daniel Westelius wrote: You, like Eli Apol, seem to somehow miss the obvious. What drives conflict are incentives. Changing how sov is taken does NOT incentivize taking space. The only thing that can do that is to make null sec worth something, and currently, it's not worth much.
I disagree with this. The reason that dominion mechanics are played out is because we've reached a state of "mutually assured destruction". Anyone who is smaller than a coalition has no incentive to attempt to take space now because doing so requires putting an expensive fleet on the field that will just be steamrolled by one of the coalitions. Even the coalitions themselves go to great lengths these days to avoid engaging each other in order to avoid another B-R. Null sec is worth as much as it ever was. It's just not accessible anymore unless you are a coalition with hundreds of supers at your disposal.
i also disagree that economic incentive is the sole reason for war. Friction is the reason for war. If the purpose of living in 0.0 was to make isk, everyone could make more isk if we'd all just cooperate. Competition for resources is a source of friction, but it's not the only source, and certainly not the dominant force in Eve's history. Ideological friction has been, going all the way back to the advocates of "free space" and those opposed to that idea, through BoB and those who hated BoB, Goons, Russians, and whomever is perceived to be the "elitist *******" or gratuitous griefer du jour.
Making contesting sov more accessible (i.e. not requiring fielding supers to do so) will increase friction. Friction is good. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
527
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:53:40 -
[3173] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:I know there is wasteland already, this will create even more wasteland. You, like Eli Apol, seem to somehow miss the obvious. What drives conflict are incentives. Changing how sov is taken does NOT incentivize taking space. The only thing that can do that is to make null sec worth something, and currently, it's not worth much. So now you've got Freeport stations all around your busy PvE systems....can you see where this is going?
theyre only busy pve systems because someone paid and put in the ihub upgrades, in spamming the reinforcement timers and making the null sec alliance there say "f**k this", they go chill in the nearest NPC null, whilst the ihubs die and the station goes free port for 48 hours (yes ONLY 48 hours not permanently)
if you capture the station then cool u can set it free port but after that? ohh i guess you can enjoy the Pve around the little pocket right? yah wrong! You need ihub upgrades to make space (even good truesec space) worthwhile. so now its wasteland too because you have no ihub and zero upgrades.. you failed to grasp the logistics of what you were getting into.
:golfclap: |
Erien Rand
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:54:56 -
[3174] - Quote
The entosis mod should only be able to be fitted to command ships or at a minimum battle cruisers. They have the command and control suites as well so it makes sense from a role-play perspective as well.
This makes the attacker commit to at least having a semi-serious fleet(s) while keeping the costs of mounting an attack fairly reasonable.
The idea of interceptor fleets running around griefing all day every day seems a bit ridiculous. |
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
444
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:56:43 -
[3175] - Quote
Daniel Westelius wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:
Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol, Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough. What happens next? The answer? Nothing. Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems. Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly. So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow !
Not so sure who is the ignorant one here. Have you actually left the TNT pockets in Deklein and Tribute and seen the wasteland that already exists in nullsec and even cfc space??? And its even worse elsewhere. The wasteland has been created by the large coalitions and what he says here drives conflict, maybe even in areas players actually could be bothered to travel to. I know there is wasteland already, this will create even more wasteland. You, like Eli Apol, seem to somehow miss the obvious. What drives conflict are incentives. Changing how sov is taken does NOT incentivize taking space. The only thing that can do that is to make null sec worth something, and currently, it's not worth much.
Ahh, but wait ....
Feel free to start your Pure Blind evac now, if you even have stuff there as I've only ever seen TNT with the blobswarm ratters in JU-, TXME ect ratting and plexing it up.
If we feel inclined, we might then take that vacated space and USE IT. Sounds to me like Fozziesov working as intended.
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
123
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:56:46 -
[3176] - Quote
Redbull Spai wrote:T2 is supposed to provide a small but noticiable bonus over T1. Not 10 TIMES the power.
Also, both types of link should be restricted to BS or higher. Possibly BC+, but no lower. Eve needs battleships returning to the fore, the recent tiericide buffed T1 cruisers, frigs, HACs, industrials, mining barges,interceptors - but gave nothing but hate to battleships (slower warp speed, no protection from inties using bubbles, far more expensive - three times the cost in the case of Phoons and Domis, no extra abilities for tier 2 BS's even though tier 2 cruisers/frigs got huge extra bonuses, no extra mid/lowslots, no extra cargobays, no extra warp strength, ect). Also dreadnoughts need a buff too, thier primary purpose was always as the main sov-capturing ship when sov depended on POS's but now they seem out on a limb.
I'd put this suggestion forward, for entosis link capture time:
Battle Ship - Standard Speed
Battlecruiser, Carrier, Super, Titan - 1/3 Speed
Dread Nought - Double Speed
They already said they were going to make it take longer on caps, I think 400% as long was the number floated. But why would you have it capture faster in a dread and capture slower in a carrier/super/titan? |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
291
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:57:09 -
[3177] - Quote
Erien Rand wrote:The entosis mod should only be able to be fitted to command ships or at a minimum battle cruisers. They have the command and control suites as well so it makes sense from a role-play perspective as well.
This makes the attacker commit to at least having a semi-serious fleet(s) while keeping the costs of mounting an attack fairly reasonable.
The idea of interceptor fleets running around griefing all day every day seems a bit ridiculous.
God knows there needs to be some point to flying a Combat Battlecruiser or Command Ship. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
291
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:59:04 -
[3178] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:They already said they were going to make it take longer on caps, I think 400% as long was the number floated. But why would you have it capture faster in a dread and capture slower in a carrier/super/titan?
Presumably to retain the dread's position as an offensive weapon? It's a guess.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
286
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:05:53 -
[3179] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:The stations are only Freeport for a 48 hour period. Unless you expect the new owners to set it as a Freeport and also assume that the established alliances will let it remain as such. No, Daniel, he's suggesting that the equilibrium resting state of those stations will be ownerless, because whenever someone comes in and claims it, we'll just burn it down again. Exactly and having neutral space right next to your nullbear capitals is going to be a PvPers delight - especially when they can force someone to actually come on grid with them with a simple highslot module.
The mistake the nullbears are making - is assuming only other nullbears are going to be interested in a neutral system slap bang next door to a PvE wonderland. |
Daniel Westelius
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:07:35 -
[3180] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:
Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol, Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough. What happens next? The answer? Nothing. Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems. Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly. So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow !
Not so sure who is the ignorant one here. Have you actually left the TNT pockets in Deklein and Tribute and seen the wasteland that already exists in nullsec and even cfc space??? And its even worse elsewhere. The wasteland has been created by the large coalitions and what he says here drives conflict, maybe even in areas players actually could be bothered to travel to. I know there is wasteland already, this will create even more wasteland. You, like Eli Apol, seem to somehow miss the obvious. What drives conflict are incentives. Changing how sov is taken does NOT incentivize taking space. The only thing that can do that is to make null sec worth something, and currently, it's not worth much. Ahh, but wait .... Feel free to start your Pure Blind evac now, if you even have stuff there as I've only ever seen TNT with the blobswarm ratters in JU-, TXME ect ratting and plexing it up. If we feel inclined, we might then take that vacated space and USE IT. Sounds to me like Fozziesov working as intended.
You know how we keep burning your POS's to the ground whenever we get the urge? Yeah, well this will be the same, and probably even more frequent. But keep telling me how you plan on *using* the space... |
|
CroisisCZ
Everyone vs Everything THE R0NIN
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:09:10 -
[3181] - Quote
Redbull Spai wrote:T2 is supposed to provide a small but noticiable bonus over T1. Not 10 TIMES the power.
Also, both types of link should be restricted to BS or higher. Possibly BC+, but no lower. Eve needs battleships returning to the fore, the recent tiericide buffed T1 cruisers, frigs, HACs, industrials, mining barges,interceptors - but gave nothing but hate to battleships (slower warp speed, no protection from inties using bubbles, far more expensive - three times the cost in the case of Phoons and Domis, no extra abilities for tier 2 BS's even though tier 2 cruisers/frigs got huge extra bonuses, no extra mid/lowslots, no extra cargobays, no extra warp strength, ect). Also dreadnoughts need a buff too, thier primary purpose was always as the main sov-capturing ship when sov depended on POS's but now they seem out on a limb.
I'd put this suggestion forward, for entosis link capture time:
Battle Ship - Standard Speed
Battlecruiser, Carrier, Super, Titan - 1/3 Speed
Dread Nought - Double Speed
What about the other way around? Restricting it to Electronic Attack Frigates? EAFs are mostly useless now and it would fit the hacking theme nicely IMHO. Plus you get the benefit of avoiding the problems with uncatchable ships trolling everyone. |
Mellianah
Aideron Robotics
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:10:22 -
[3182] - Quote
Not invested in null sec play, so I'm mostly just curious...
I see a lot of people talking about 100m Entosis Frigates/Inties, etc. and that seems unreasonably low to me. Given the amount of Isk lost, so far, to ships killed by Drifters, are people factoring this in? Build cost might be low, but I don't think the market price will be - especially if people stockpile, to limit availability.
And just how numerous are the Drifters, as a resource? Is their 'spawn rate' consistent and predictable?
I'm uninformed, in that respect, but it definitely feels like a tightly restricted supply/demand situation.
I don't doubt 'you lot' will soon figure out how many folks it'll take to alpha Drifters at will, but will there be enough of them to meet demand?
Anyone care to share their Intel on it...? |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:11:07 -
[3183] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: What's really going to happen is that the coalitions are going to let people come in and take sov and plant ihubs. Then the coalitions are going to kill those. Or threaten to kill those. And if you don't pay a monthly fee...lets call it RENT even if we know it's actually 'extortion'...that coalition is going to jump 40 jumps every month to destroy their assets again and again until they say $%^& it and go back to high/low/WH space.
If what you enjoy about the game is being able to say "I told you so" your strategy is solid. You've got a higher chance of being proven right than wrong. In order for a change in mechanics to result in a change in the game, player behavior will have to change.
The scenario that you put forward is the most likely, but not the only possible scenario. If Black Legion, and the various and sundry groups that actually excel at PvP take this as an opportunity to harass the big coalitions out of existance, they'll have a much better shot at doing so with these mechanics than with the mechanics in place at present. They won't need to take and defend sov. They'll only need to make life miserable for those who do until the coalitions break. That will have to happen first. Yes, while 40,000+ coalitions exist, trying to hold sov will be a bad deal. These mechanics provide an opportunity to break them, but only an opportunity. Players will still need to make it actually happen.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1104
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:12:54 -
[3184] - Quote
i would suggest making entosis links fittings similar to command links thus limiting what ships could use them, stopping the frigate exploits, perhaps even making them class specific say Combat bc's and battleships.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
286
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:13:30 -
[3185] - Quote
Daniel Westelius wrote:You know how we keep burning your POS's to the ground whenever we get the urge? Yeah, well this will be the same, and probably even more frequent. But keep telling me how you plan on *using* the space... Trying to remember my psychology to discern what type of cognitive bias this falls under....
Not everyone that will benefit from neutral space is a nullbear like you. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1057
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:14:35 -
[3186] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:The coalitions aren't going to die, no-one afaik has even hinted at that, shrink and condense, definitely, fracture, perhaps..... No. We are making plans to just forget about Null Sec completely as an entire coalition, if these SOV changes go through.
Null Sec aka Low Sec 2.0 will not have the value for us to put up with so many constant headaches.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Daniel Westelius
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:15:51 -
[3187] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:The stations are only Freeport for a 48 hour period. Unless you expect the new owners to set it as a Freeport and also assume that the established alliances will let it remain as such. No, Daniel, he's suggesting that the equilibrium resting state of those stations will be ownerless, because whenever someone comes in and claims it, we'll just burn it down again. Exactly and having neutral space right next to your nullbear capitals is going to be a PvPers delight - especially when they can force someone to actually come on grid with them with a simple highslot module. The mistake the nullbears are making - is assuming only other nullbears are going to be interested in a neutral system slap bang next door to a PvE wonderland.
Playing whack-a-mole with a station... Let's see how long that will last. It certainly won't get boring quickly right? I am curious as to how close you think these small alliances will get to these big alliances without swift retaliation. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
287
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:16:05 -
[3188] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Eli Apol wrote:The coalitions aren't going to die, no-one afaik has even hinted at that, shrink and condense, definitely, fracture, perhaps..... No. We are making plans to just forget about Null Sec completely as an entire coalition, if these SOV changes go through. Null Sec aka Low Sec 2.0 will not have the value for us to put up with so many constant headaches. Completely agree Jenshae, I've not said otherwise, there needs to be a higher, better distributed value in null for this to work :) |
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
445
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:17:42 -
[3189] - Quote
Daniel Westelius wrote:Kinis Deren wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:
Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol, Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough. What happens next? The answer? Nothing. Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems. Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly. So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow !
Not so sure who is the ignorant one here. Have you actually left the TNT pockets in Deklein and Tribute and seen the wasteland that already exists in nullsec and even cfc space??? And its even worse elsewhere. The wasteland has been created by the large coalitions and what he says here drives conflict, maybe even in areas players actually could be bothered to travel to. I know there is wasteland already, this will create even more wasteland. You, like Eli Apol, seem to somehow miss the obvious. What drives conflict are incentives. Changing how sov is taken does NOT incentivize taking space. The only thing that can do that is to make null sec worth something, and currently, it's not worth much. Ahh, but wait .... Feel free to start your Pure Blind evac now, if you even have stuff there as I've only ever seen TNT with the blobswarm ratters in JU-, TXME ect ratting and plexing it up. If we feel inclined, we might then take that vacated space and USE IT. Sounds to me like Fozziesov working as intended. You know how we keep burning your POS's to the ground whenever we get the urge? Yeah, well this will be the same, and probably even more frequent. But keep telling me how you plan on *using* the space...
Lulz, as if we care about structures. You clearly don't get MOA: we're about the fights.
Tell me more how your "Taking out the Trash" campaign and repeated hell camps of 5Z removed us from Pure Blind? Hmmm, what was that? You've suddenly gone very quiet over there.
Anyhow, back on topic ... so you and your coward coalition of 40k+ players descend on 5Z or one of the surrounding systems we may take sov. So tell me, oh glorious tactician, what are you going to do about all the other numerous small entities in Fountain, Outer Ring, Venal, Fade, Deklein, Vale, Tribute and Branch all concurrently nibbling at your soft sov underbelly huh?
Nah, I think we'll do just fine and it will be certainly fun for us in the attempt too.
Fossiesov, bring it on! |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
287
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:18:03 -
[3190] - Quote
Daniel Westelius wrote:Playing whack-a-mole with a station... Let's see how long that will last. It certainly won't get boring quickly right? I am curious as to how close you think these small alliances will get to these big alliances without swift retaliation. And you called me ignorant sigh...
We've just established that you will have swathes of 'neutral' space around all your high indices, high PvE systems.
So the answer is NEXT DOOR. |
|
Daniel Westelius
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:21:51 -
[3191] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:Playing whack-a-mole with a station... Let's see how long that will last. It certainly won't get boring quickly right? I am curious as to how close you think these small alliances will get to these big alliances without swift retaliation. And you called me ignorant sigh... We've just established that you will have swathes of 'neutral' space around all your high indices, high PvE systems. So the answer is NEXT DOOR.
Hahahahahahahahaha. Oh man, that was a good laugh. Let me know how that works out for you. |
Corey Lean
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:25:56 -
[3192] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Lulz, as if we care about structures. You clearly don't get MOA: we're about the fights
Cant remember the last time MOA fought anything. All I ever see is interceptors running away. This new system may suit you well if the goal is to ninja sov rather than fight for it
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1606
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:26:28 -
[3193] - Quote
Ok, one point that seems to be being avoided or missed, If as some fear, goons send a swarm across new eden capturing everything as content for their players. Yes they can be disruptive, and yes, there will be lots of fights, and yes, they can capture lots of systems..
What then?
Are they going to sit there bored out of their brains?
No they will go home, back to their core, and then they can be taken back.
All this means is that after the initial crazy hour, that the map gets redrawn, and as long as CCP do not weaken and allow defence by strong border again, by making them near impassable for a scout that can switch reinforced mode on, then the game will be healthy.
And balance will be found. Driven by the players.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Daniel Westelius
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:28:54 -
[3194] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:Kinis Deren wrote:Daniel Westelius wrote:Dark Spite wrote: Not so sure who is the ignorant one here. Have you actually left the TNT pockets in Deklein and Tribute and seen the wasteland that already exists in nullsec and even cfc space??? And its even worse elsewhere. The wasteland has been created by the large coalitions and what he says here drives conflict, maybe even in areas players actually could be bothered to travel to.
I know there is wasteland already, this will create even more wasteland. You, like Eli Apol, seem to somehow miss the obvious. What drives conflict are incentives. Changing how sov is taken does NOT incentivize taking space. The only thing that can do that is to make null sec worth something, and currently, it's not worth much. Ahh, but wait .... Feel free to start your Pure Blind evac now, if you even have stuff there as I've only ever seen TNT with the blobswarm ratters in JU-, TXME ect ratting and plexing it up. If we feel inclined, we might then take that vacated space and USE IT. Sounds to me like Fozziesov working as intended. You know how we keep burning your POS's to the ground whenever we get the urge? Yeah, well this will be the same, and probably even more frequent. But keep telling me how you plan on *using* the space... Lulz, as if we care about structures. You clearly don't get MOA: we're about the fights. Tell me more how your "Taking out the Trash" campaign and repeated hell camps of 5Z removed us from Pure Blind? Hmmm, what was that? You've suddenly gone very quiet over there. Anyhow, back on topic ... so you and your coward coalition of 40k+ players descend on 5Z or one of the surrounding systems we may take sov. So tell me, oh glorious tactician, what are you going to do about all the other numerous small entities in Fountain, Outer Ring, Venal, Fade, Deklein, Vale, Tribute and Branch all concurrently nibbling at your soft sov underbelly huh? Nah, I think we'll do just fine and it will be certainly fun for us in the attempt too. Fossiesov, bring it on!
They also said Phoebe would destroy us, yet we are stiill here. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
798
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:44:37 -
[3195] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Edit: Hmmm ... flip all systems to, "Fozzie sucks" corporation, soon before leaving.
Ha ha ha. I can just imagine the Verite Map-over-time:, it gets to the month of the change, flashes up Fozzie Sucks in big letters across the map, before going black . Your not an alt of one of us are you?
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:45:16 -
[3196] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:i would suggest making entosis links fittings similar to command links thus limiting what ships could use them, stopping the frigate exploits, perhaps even making them class specific say Combat bc's and battleships. Why not just make Entosis Links Command links? That limits them to enough ship types: T3 Cruisers, BC, Command Ships. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 18:50:54 -
[3197] - Quote
A couple other ideas:
I. Make TCU more useful/valuable - Make it so that Station and iHub are immune while TCU is up for same alliance. This adds 2 things: 1) Makes the TCU a strategic target which it is not under the new system. 2) Slows attacks on a system having to reinforce or capture the TCU first.
II. Balance the T2 Entosis link better - 1) with much higher fittings and even additional skills. 2) Remove T2 and add a low or mid slot link amplifier such that several amps would be needed to reach the current proposed T2. By eating up more fitting slots to improve speed and range you limit what else the attacking link ship can do or be. |
permion
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:01:10 -
[3198] - Quote
Even if this works like the developers think it's going to. The game mechanic is just changed to the winner being whoever is willing to waste the most time(or the full 4 hours) to force one side or the other to be there... Because links. |
Dolores VonCartier
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:01:48 -
[3199] - Quote
Is there anything else we need to know ? For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ?
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
287
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:03:14 -
[3200] - Quote
Dolores VonCartier wrote:Is there anything else we need to know ? For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ? They sound like things that would be used by players that don't want to actively use and defend their space... |
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1607
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:09:18 -
[3201] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Dolores VonCartier wrote:Is there anything else we need to know ? For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ? They sound like things that would be used by players that don't want to actively use and defend their space...
There is that impression, the same as making sure no ships that can fit an entosis link can actually get there to use it.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Dolores VonCartier
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:11:08 -
[3202] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Dolores VonCartier wrote:Is there anything else we need to know ? For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ? They sound like things that would be used by players that don't want to actively use and defend their space...
May be, but isn't it a piece of information useful to make up our mind ? |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
288
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:13:27 -
[3203] - Quote
Dolores VonCartier wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Dolores VonCartier wrote:Is there anything else we need to know ? For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ? They sound like things that would be used by players that don't want to actively use and defend their space... May be, but isn't it a piece of information useful to make up our mind ? Is the intent of the changes to allow people to passively hold sov?
If you can answer that you can probably answer your own question. |
Drogo Drogos
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:13:31 -
[3204] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:For me, Sov should be easier than it is, but it should also be for those that are committed to it. If 100 ceptors can reff a region in a few hours, every sov holder (big and small) will burn out really soon, even if the prime time settings are changed periodically.
In my view, the current design is not so bad, but at least make the sov laser have some heavier requirements. I read someone suggesting Command Ships and think this is a good idea. Maybe T1 Sov lasers in battlecruisers and T2 Sov lasers for Command Ships... that would also give some purpose to a forgotten class of ships.
Yup that was me who was hoping to find a niche for the forgotten command ships who are sexy but never used. This will give these ships a reason to show their face on the field again. And they arent cheap so the attacker needs to commit to their objective instead of sending in fast disposable ships to cause a fcton of work for the defenders and giving no fights.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
857
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:15:33 -
[3205] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Dolores VonCartier wrote:Is there anything else we need to know ? For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ? They sound like things that would be used by players that don't want to actively use and defend their space... There is that impression, the same as making sure no ships that can fit an entosis link can actually get there to use it.
What is stopping the BC from getting there to use it? It cannot take gates? Oh, you mean because someone will shoot it?!!! Isn't that the whole point - to encourage people to actually fight? Not just to endlessly circle jerk in uncatchable cheap ships?
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:17:57 -
[3206] - Quote
Because it was asked several times i will try to estimate a value of claimable systems. My original intention was to prove why many systems are empty but that didn't work out.
Claimable systems are divided in security classes ranging from 0 to 7, as shown on dotlan. In median the numbers are following (taken from SDE):
Class Count Security Range 01422-0.01-0.23 1397-0.23-0.32 2324-0.32-0.41 3274-0.41-0.51 4276-0.51-0.62 5227-0.62-0.72 6186-0.72-0.83 7182-0.83-1.00 Sum 1-71866 All3288
What i see at a glance is, that the systems with a rating of 0 have nearly the same count as all other systems. Leads me to the conclusion that half the systems are kind of worthless by design.
I could not do the maths about moongoo (lack of data) but what i know is that a better system index has a better chance for moons that actually earn something. In addition we can't take R64 moons into account because they are not connected in any way to sov except for some fuel blocks and are never owned by the inhabitants and i doubt that this will change in future but i hope so.
Now to mining. If you compare the payout between PvE and Mining (same for highsec) you notice that you need multi accounts to earn isk that comes anywhere near PvE. Because of the latest jump nerf and the announced capital nerf the industrials/miner tend to only supply their region regarding nullsec. They just ship some nullsec only and therefore more expansive minerals to highsec. The jump and capital nerf made that ice mining is rarely needed anymore. Just 1 iceminer in a corp of 30 ppl. is enough. This effect will lower the industrial index and with that the capture time for all systems. Open the map and compare industrial index with military index (PvE/Mining) you will see that only some systems have industrial index greater than 3.
Now i got only the military index left to predict the value of a system and the reason for living there. I will do that with the drone region as example. With the lack of numbers but flying through the systems i found out that even the lowest systems have some kind of worth though personally i would never go live there.
Estimating your system has military upgrade 5 the system can operate following simultaneous PvE ships: A class 0 system is just good for 7 T1 cruiser, a T1 BS and marauder like or carrier. My guess for the cruiser is that 2 of them are flown by 1 person. A class 7 system is good for 9 marauder like or carrier and about 2 BS/T3. Noone there is flying smaller ships other than to prepare for bigger ships.
So we got active PvE ships ranging from 5 to 11 member. Now we have to add the miner but my best guess is that these are just alt's and therefore don't count to members. We need logistic, booster and administrative things as well which sums up to let's say 4 member. Because the member are not doing all the things at the same time this sums up only like 8 to 15 online member. These member may be online the prime time for 4h everyday but i don't think this will happen every day.
The earned isk ranges from pour to pretty well scaling with the system class. Still would never go into a system lower than 4 which is just 24% of all null systems left but that's personnel.
I see that ppl. really (but rarely) live in these 50% low isk systems and i know that noone will live or stay there if their ihub with the upgrades explodes once a month because this exceeds by far the renting fee and cant be calculated. You need to be a hardcoreplayer for living in these low value systems and i think these 1422 systems will stay empty.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1622
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:18:16 -
[3207] - Quote
Drogo Drogos wrote:Duffyman wrote:For me, Sov should be easier than it is, but it should also be for those that are committed to it. If 100 ceptors can reff a region in a few hours, every sov holder (big and small) will burn out really soon, even if the prime time settings are changed periodically.
In my view, the current design is not so bad, but at least make the sov laser have some heavier requirements. I read someone suggesting Command Ships and think this is a good idea. Maybe T1 Sov lasers in battlecruisers and T2 Sov lasers for Command Ships... that would also give some purpose to a forgotten class of ships. Yup that was me who was hoping to find a niche for the forgotten command ships who are sexy but never used. This will give these ships a reason to show their face on the field again. And they arent cheap so the attacker needs to commit to their objective instead of sending in fast disposable ships to cause a fcton of work for the defenders and giving no fights.
Except then it has a requirement of training for all warfare link before you can train the right ship to use a link...
EDIT :
FT Diomedes wrote:
What is stopping the BC from getting there to use it? It cannot take gates? Oh, you mean because someone will shoot it?!!! Isn't that the whole point - to encourage people to actually fight? Not just to endlessly circle jerk in uncatchable cheap ships?
Yeah I'm stupid and forgot normal BC can fit link. Thanks for reminding me. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1607
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:18:35 -
[3208] - Quote
Drogo Drogos wrote:Duffyman wrote:For me, Sov should be easier than it is, but it should also be for those that are committed to it. If 100 ceptors can reff a region in a few hours, every sov holder (big and small) will burn out really soon, even if the prime time settings are changed periodically.
In my view, the current design is not so bad, but at least make the sov laser have some heavier requirements. I read someone suggesting Command Ships and think this is a good idea. Maybe T1 Sov lasers in battlecruisers and T2 Sov lasers for Command Ships... that would also give some purpose to a forgotten class of ships. Yup that was me who was hoping to find a niche for the forgotten command ships who are sexy but never used. This will give these ships a reason to show their face on the field again. And they arent cheap so the attacker needs to commit to their objective instead of sending in fast disposable ships to cause a fcton of work for the defenders and giving no fights.
Well a new use to expand their value would of course be good, and command ships on the field, during the capture phase, might be a good benefit, that is an idea that they might have a cycle time reduction, but for the initial phase, it certainly would not be ideal for an uncontested system, but could have value in a true furball scenario. But if no one is defending the system, no one deserves to keep it, anything should be able to start reinforcement if no one can be bothered to undock.
This new world being offered by CCP is one where if you are involved, and active the stars are yours. If you wait for someone else to tell you what to do, not so much.
New ad by CCP.... "Do you want to hold the stars in the palm of your hand, and the future of Empires, decided by your efforts?" CCP 2015 Gäó
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Commander Spurty
Dimension Door We need wards.
1430
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:19:04 -
[3209] - Quote
This is beautiful.
Many of these 'this is bad because' threads are just 'I do not want anything to change' whines.
Yes, that 50k blue donut you're part of means you no longer have any fun ever again while you remain part of it.
You're going to have to do something about that.
The best part is I bet you really can't work out what that could possibly be (hint: time to remove the training wheels).
There are good ships
And wood ships
And ships that sail the sea
But the best ships are
Spaceships
Built by CCP
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2572
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:45:13 -
[3210] - Quote
https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
624
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:48:41 -
[3211] - Quote
We still have the issue of the blobs being able to rotate primetimes, and single-timezone entities being subject to greater degrees of burnout.
Blobs get blobbier. Malcanis law strikes again.
Now you know why Goons hijacked Brave Newbies.
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Ereilian
Mythic Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 19:48:54 -
[3212] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m
Oh sure, lets make it even harder by taking the ONE interation the defender controls and allow the famous "codemonkeys" decide when it is. That is like allowing the Mafia to decide who gets prosecuted by the IRS.
Other than that, CCP is in FULL turtle mode, fingers in ears chanting "Greed is Good." |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
313
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:00:39 -
[3213] - Quote
People keep asking for an incentive for sov. With the new sov system require action taken throughout the constellation, I believe this will play into the coming player made stargates. I believe sov of an entire constellation will be required to anchor a stargate. Most likely to allow for structuring new connectivity between the constellation systems themselves, as well as aa way to estaablish a new connection with another constellation if you own sov there too.
Imagine being able to reshape the connections within your owned constellation. reduce reliance on jump bridges. Enabling your alliance to immediately respond to any threat in your constellation from any system in your constellation without having to make 3 or 4 jumps.
example: 8 system constellation. your alliance anchors stargates in every system so that each system connects to each system in the constellation. Allowing your defensive fleets to not so easily be blockaded by attackers. Huge advantage for your alliance. Shiny infrustructure for others to want to claim for themselves.
I believe player made stargates will be the major incentive for owning sovereignty of a constellation. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
180
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:01:20 -
[3214] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m
he'll ignore it just like he's ignored cloaky camping which also has an impact on system indexes.. he's just trying to keep heat off his behind.. he's lying his behind off..
gameplay has became cloaky afk camping and nothing has been done about it. he pretends there isn't an issue, but if there's hundreds of threads about it.. why not someone from ccp deal with it..
oh that's right .. AFK CLOAKY CAMPING is active gameplay....psssssssssssssssht |
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:03:11 -
[3215] - Quote
Its probably been asked but why are a single system's sov bunkers (or whatever the hell they are) scattered across the constellation? If you are going to do that wouldn't it make more sense to change the sov claim from a system based one to a constellation?
And please please please don't make this time zone based warfare, I've fought Russians in Sov wars in the past and it ain't fun - I'd rather have the old POS based system back.
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
313
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:06:14 -
[3216] - Quote
Rainus Max wrote:Its probably been asked but why are a single system's sov bunkers (or whatever the hell they are) scattered across the constellation? If you are going to do that wouldn't it make more sense to change the sov claim from a system based one to a constellation?
because player made stargates are coming. Constellation sov will, I believe, be the major basis for anchoring a new stargate. |
Ereilian
Mythic Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:16:19 -
[3217] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Rainus Max wrote:Its probably been asked but why are a single system's sov bunkers (or whatever the hell they are) scattered across the constellation? If you are going to do that wouldn't it make more sense to change the sov claim from a system based one to a constellation?
because player made stargates are coming. Constellation sov will, I believe, be the major basis for anchoring a new stargate.
Hmm, standing based gate system.
The tears that would bring would be glorious. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:38:38 -
[3218] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m
Listen to as much as I could stomach. When Fozzie got to the part where he talked about how much isk was being made in null and how "it's obviously valuable because people rent the space he proved that he doesn't understand the difference between isk (what you get in sov null from anomalies) and WEALTH (what you get more of if you know what you are doing outside, especially if you are doing it outside of sov null). the WEALTH faucets (LP and blue loot for examples) outside of null also sink isk which is good, but that doesn't matter to the individual whose wallet got fatter
The presence of rents means null systems AREN'T valuable enough to take for your self (but are totally ok as a form of passive income for your alliance). The kinds of liquid isk you can make in null as a renter is nice (and that liquidity and ease of acquisition is a key selling point), but it has a hard ceiling that once you get there, people usually smarten up and go do the more lucrative things (like l5 blitzing, FW l4 missions and high sec incursions)
If the main guy leading the charge for sov changes doesn't understand the above, the system he and his people develop when they get to he "why" stage (phase 3?) will be every bit as flawed as the last anomaly changes were (I'll refrain from linking that 4 year old dev blog just this once).
You're supposedly the PVE-ist CSM we have, you should know this things as well , no?
|
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1439
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:46:18 -
[3219] - Quote
Harder to code a level 5 bot. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
106
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:50:13 -
[3220] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Kah'Les wrote:Papa Django wrote:tlmitf wrote:http://www.themittani.com/features/proposed-sov-changes-rise-trollceptor
In reply to the issues raised in this article about interceptors being used to "troll" alliances, the answer is simple.
The answer is : there is no issue with trollceptors. It was discussed extensively in this thread it is so easily counterable when you live in your space. In your mind. Trollceptor is not there to take SOV the main concerne it is there to promt a groupe to respond to it, and then just fly off and do it somewhere else. But the small brains of high sec do not understand the value of grife and risk aversing. You just need to prompt a response proportionnal to the threat. A single alt cloaky scout is enough to see the threat coming. If you are occupying your space it is not an issue it is good. I live in a low class wormhole, we do this every f....ing day. We plant alt cloaky scout on every hole, each time someone detect activation we send a response scaled to the threat. We cancel mining we cancel ratting we cancel hunting. We cancel everything for a single noob probe because it is our space. If it is a single probe it takes like 5 mins to take it out. If it is a small gang we go in POS, we reship then we fight. If we are outgunned we try some harrass with bombers, etc ... We are already doing these things. It's not an issue when you are occupying effectively the space you claim.
Yea and you realize that your WH pays out 5x better than pretty much all of nullsec? Wh's are bare non the best isk for time spent in the game.
|
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2576
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:52:11 -
[3221] - Quote
Sadly, what I know and what I am allowed to say diverge, in places.
I am often shown the same graphs as you guys, just sooner. Now conspiracy theorists can claim that all the graphs are misleading or patently false but then what is the point in even engaging in the discussion if you trust none of the data laid upon the table?
I respect the NDA that I have signed and thus, stay a CSM for about one more week. The the guards will change.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
107
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:56:16 -
[3222] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m Listen to as much as I could stomach. When Fozzie got to the part where he talked about how much isk was being made in null and how "it's obviously valuable because people rent the space he proved that he doesn't understand the difference between isk (what you get in sov null from anomalies) and WEALTH (what you get more of if you know what you are doing outside, especially if you are doing it outside of sov null). the WEALTH faucets (LP and blue loot for examples) outside of null also sink isk which is good, but that doesn't matter to the individual whose wallet got fatter The presence of rents means null systems AREN'T valuable enough to take for your self (but are totally ok as a form of passive income for your alliance). The kinds of liquid isk you can make in null as a renter is nice (and that liquidity and ease of acquisition is a key selling point), but it has a hard ceiling that once you get there, people usually smarten up and go do the more lucrative things (like l5 blitzing, FW l4 missions and high sec incursions) If the main guy leading the charge for sov changes doesn't understand the above, the system he and his people develop when they get to he "why" stage (phase 3?) will be every bit as flawed as the last anomaly changes were (I'll refrain from linking that 4 year old dev blog just this once). You're supposedly the PVE-ist CSM we have, you should know this things as well , no?
Did he actually say that? lord of mercy help us if he did. The way we rent space versus whether its valuable or not is up for debate. There is alot of systems that are basically given away just to generate ~any level of income~ form them. Something like 80% of the rent we collect comes from 5% of the best systems IN THE GAME. Im talking the perfect PVE systems in entire regions, your dead end, tons of advanced warning, lots of belts, ice, -.99 trusec systems. If you want a **** system there like 500 mil a month and you honestly could probably talk us down to 250 mil if you talked a good game. Better than moons? yes, but realize we sell our best space for this income, not just any nullsec system |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
107
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:57:44 -
[3223] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Sadly, what I know and what I am allowed to say diverge, in places.
I am often shown the same graphs as you guys, just sooner. Now conspiracy theorists can claim that all the graphs are misleading or patently false but then what is the point in even engaging in the discussion if you trust none of the data laid upon the table?
I respect the NDA that I have signed and thus, stay a CSM for about one more week. The the guards will change.
m
So your saying you too want to blow your brains out the back of your skull when that ship damage graph showing all the shiptypes that proves battleships are in a good way got rolled out? |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
107
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:59:17 -
[3224] - Quote
Rainus Max wrote:Its probably been asked but why are a single system's sov bunkers (or whatever the hell they are) scattered across the constellation? If you are going to do that wouldn't it make more sense to change the sov claim from a system based one to a constellation?
And please please please don't make this time zone based warfare, I've fought Russians in Sov wars in the past and it ain't fun - I'd rather have the old POS based system back.
I actually agree with you constellation svo would be better, and would solve the 80-90 command node issue. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:00:43 -
[3225] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Sadly, what I know and what I am allowed to say diverge, in places.
I am often shown the same graphs as you guys, just sooner. Now conspiracy theorists can claim that all the graphs are misleading or patently false but then what is the point in even engaging in the discussion if you trust none of the data laid upon the table?
I respect the NDA that I have signed and thus, stay a CSM for about one more week. The the guards will change.
m
I understand that. but all of also know that in the adult world, things can be misleading or incomplete. For example, does the graphs take into account who is an alt? Or how much of a given amount is created by a bot (ie when ccp removes isk from the economy because of botting, does the guy making the isk injection graph know that, is removing that isk an automated process? (etc etc).
I know you can't answer, but the point is that things aren't always how they seem, and how you interpret things matters. Those of us who PVE across new eden and are exposed to different kinds (as opposed to those who stay in one place and never experience the rest) aren't imagining things when we make a half bil doing one thing (blitzing l5s) and 5 times less doing another (anomalies in a pimped pirate BS in null).
|
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
75
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:02:50 -
[3226] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote: Yea and you realize that your WH pays out 5x better than pretty much all of nullsec? Wh's are bare non the best isk for time spent in the game.
We are in a low class wormhole.
Income is not that large. We farm our static, never our home system. Cleaning a nice C3 is something between 1b to 1.5b. You can do it with 6 pilots in 2 hours. So it is 125m / hour.
It seems pretty but : - it need 30 mins to 1h preparations (collapsing, probing, planting scouts). So it fall to a 80m / h per pilot. - you are often disturbed (covops maybe hiding a ganking squad, K162 pop) - it is probably the riskier pve activity in all Eve. - you can collapse your static 20 times and not finding that kind of wormhole to farm -> no farming at all.
So we do what we find in our static and the related chain. We don't farm when we want, Bob chooses for us !
Lot's of wh ? Ok let's explore the chain hunting Pretty highsec ? Ok let's doing some logistic travel. Lot's of anomalies ? Ok let's farm Close connexion with a friend corp ? Let's group with them.
etc ...
This is completly different from farming auto respawning ano in nullsec.
You simply don't know what you are talking about ...
Our way of life is the closest from things CCP want for nullsec. Small corp, small territory actively occupied and defended. Too small for nullsec but it is the way. |
DaReaper
Net 7
1839
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:02:56 -
[3227] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Rainus Max wrote:Its probably been asked but why are a single system's sov bunkers (or whatever the hell they are) scattered across the constellation? If you are going to do that wouldn't it make more sense to change the sov claim from a system based one to a constellation?
And please please please don't make this time zone based warfare, I've fought Russians in Sov wars in the past and it ain't fun - I'd rather have the old POS based system back.
I actually agree with you constellation svo would be better, and would solve the 80-90 command node issue.
Be careful what you wish for...
pre dominion constellation sov was hell
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Pooptasticize
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:05:17 -
[3228] - Quote
Please see: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5557970 for a good idea *Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. ISD Ezwal. |
Perkin Warbeck
Black Watch Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:07:11 -
[3229] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
snip
m
Wow, just, wow. I assume you are joking. You don't implement a flawed, exploitable system on the basis of 'well we can always patch it up later' ffs. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
107
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:08:54 -
[3230] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Vigilanta wrote:Rainus Max wrote:Its probably been asked but why are a single system's sov bunkers (or whatever the hell they are) scattered across the constellation? If you are going to do that wouldn't it make more sense to change the sov claim from a system based one to a constellation?
And please please please don't make this time zone based warfare, I've fought Russians in Sov wars in the past and it ain't fun - I'd rather have the old POS based system back.
I actually agree with you constellation svo would be better, and would solve the 80-90 command node issue. Be careful what you wish for... pre dominion constellation sov was hell
Pre dominion constellation sov also contained pos invulnerability, so thats a wholy differnt beast than constellation sov. |
|
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:10:31 -
[3231] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m Listen to as much as I could stomach. When Fozzie got to the part where he talked about how much isk was being made in null and how "it's obviously valuable because people rent the space he proved that he doesn't understand the difference between isk (what you get in sov null from anomalies) and WEALTH (what you get more of if you know what you are doing outside, especially if you are doing it outside of sov null). the WEALTH faucets (LP and blue loot for examples) outside of null also sink isk which is good, but that doesn't matter to the individual whose wallet got fatter The presence of rents means null systems AREN'T valuable enough to take for your self (but are totally ok as a form of passive income for your alliance). The kinds of liquid isk you can make in null as a renter is nice (and that liquidity and ease of acquisition is a key selling point), but it has a hard ceiling that once you get there, people usually smarten up and go do the more lucrative things (like l5 blitzing, FW l4 missions and high sec incursions) If the main guy leading the charge for sov changes doesn't understand the above, the system he and his people develop when they get to he "why" stage (phase 3?) will be every bit as flawed as the last anomaly changes were (I'll refrain from linking that 4 year old dev blog just this once). You're supposedly the PVE-ist CSM we have, you should know this things as well , no? Did he actually say that? lord of mercy help us if he did. The way we rent space versus whether its valuable or not is up for debate. There is alot of systems that are basically given away just to generate ~any level of income~ form them. Something like 80% of the rent we collect comes from 5% of the best systems IN THE GAME. Im talking the perfect PVE systems in entire regions, your dead end, tons of advanced warning, lots of belts, ice, -.99 trusec systems. If you want a **** system there like 500 mil a month and you honestly could probably talk us down to 250 mil if you talked a good game. Better than moons? yes, but realize we sell our best space for this income, not just any nullsec system
What a load of complete and utter BS. You don't rent for 500mill or even 250mill. There around 1.5 bill at least i mean some are like a ridiculous 10-13billion!. You shouldn't be allowed to rent full stop. You are lazy so and so who intact should be living in their own systems and getting income from this. What gives you the right to say we own this but we won't live in it, so we 'rent' it out. I hate the whole rental thing, its getting out of hand, and if CCP do nothing to stop it then ill be unsubbing for sure this time. Its wrong for the game.
For me i would create a new instance of eve and let everyone else have a proper chance to start from the beginning, because anyone who has just started or even been playing a couple of years, either has to kiss someones ass, or will never ever get to the same level as the current large alliances, they just don't have the same options or opportunities. This is why people leave in droves. This is why other MMOs have many worlds so that everyone has a chance. |
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
445
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:12:57 -
[3232] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m
Sorry Mike, but no to Greygal's idea, if I'm reading her suggestion correctly from your post.
The core idea behind Sov 3.0 is that if a system is unused and/or undefended it should be easy for anyone to take - there should be no "remote" defence or reduction of vulnerability for systems that don't enjoy a degree of occupation. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
107
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:13:43 -
[3233] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Vigilanta wrote: Yea and you realize that your WH pays out 5x better than pretty much all of nullsec? Wh's are bare non the best isk for time spent in the game.
We are in a low class wormhole. Income is not that large. We farm our static, never our home system. Cleaning a nice C3 is something between 1b to 1.5b. You can do it with 6 pilots in 2 hours. So it is 125m / hour. It seems pretty but : - it need 30 mins to 1h preparations (collapsing, probing, planting scouts). So it fall to a 80m / h per pilot. - you are often disturbed (covops maybe hiding a ganking squad, K162 pop) - it is probably the riskier pve activity in all Eve. - you can collapse your static 20 times and not finding that kind of wormhole to farm -> no farming at all. So we do what we find in our static and the related chain. We don't farm when we want, Bob chooses for us ! Lot's of wh ? Ok let's explore the chain hunting Pretty highsec ? Ok let's doing some logistic travel. Lot's of anomalies ? Ok let's farm Close connexion with a friend corp ? Let's group with them. etc ... This is completly different from farming auto respawning ano in nullsec. You simply don't know what you are talking about ... Our way of life is the closest from things CCP want for nullsec. Small corp, small territory actively occupied and defended. Too small for nullsec but it is the way.
No your way of life is closest to what CCP could have wanted for WHs, not nullsec. okay, so your in a lowclass wh, what class? because from what ive seen most of c3 and below is not inhabited, unironically not unlike nullsec. Difference is 1 wh system supports ALOT more people than 1 NS system.
|
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:14:43 -
[3234] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m Sorry Mike, but no to Greygal's idea, if I'm reading her suggestion correctly for your post. The core idea behind Sov 3.0 is that if a system is unused and/or undefended it should be easy for anyone to take - there should be no "remote" defence or reduction of vulnerability for systems that don't enjoy a degree of occupation.
look large alliances are getting around this by renting every system, therefore occupancy is always there. This is the problem. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
291
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:15:00 -
[3235] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Lot's of wh ? Ok let's explore the chain hunting Pretty highsec ? Ok let's doing some logistic travel. Lot's of anomalies ? Ok let's farm Close connexion with a friend corp ? Let's group with them. Connection to ~insert bigger fish than you WH alliance~
log off your main, log in your PI alts and hope they close it for you |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1493
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:15:14 -
[3236] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Did he actually say that? lord of mercy help us if he did.
In response to a question about why he tackled the "taking and holding" of sov instead of the "reasons why we fight for sov:"
CCP Fozzie wrote:For a couple of reasons. One is that we have been tackling why for quite a long time, like I said. The changes we've been making throughout the last couple of years have been aimed towards that. And they have been successful. I know there's a lot of people who claim that nullsec is completely useless. I mean, there's obviously ways in which the economic [?] could be improved in nullsec, especially in certain areas like mining. But we can see how much money people are making in nullsec, and it is [...] a gigantic amount.
Having watched the discussions about wealth in nullsec as an outsider, there are clearly a lot of assumptions made by various parties about the terms of the discussion--"optimal/suboptimal" becomes "possible/impossible," or ISK/hr is discussed without reference to the amount of preparation and effort and (character and player) skill required, and I'm sure there are many more ways in which the discussion gets blurred. Right in this thread, I've seen the assertion that any ratting opportunities in systems that might get traffic are worthless.
There are a lot of unstated assumptions flying around, and I don't think that helps to sort this out. So, unless you're prepared to go out and say that CCP Fozzie is lying or an idiot--in which case you might as well go fashion yourself a tinfoil hat--you have to start with the assumption that there actually is a gigantic amount of money being made in nullsec, and then figure out why it doesn't seem to be distributed or apportioned or available in a satisfactory way.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:17:26 -
[3237] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Vigilanta wrote:Rainus Max wrote:Its probably been asked but why are a single system's sov bunkers (or whatever the hell they are) scattered across the constellation? If you are going to do that wouldn't it make more sense to change the sov claim from a system based one to a constellation?
And please please please don't make this time zone based warfare, I've fought Russians in Sov wars in the past and it ain't fun - I'd rather have the old POS based system back.
I actually agree with you constellation svo would be better, and would solve the 80-90 command node issue. Be careful what you wish for... pre dominion constellation sov was hell
Because that was still system based sov, constellation sov would be you take the whole area in one go. What I had thought up was basically you claim the constellation and designate a 'capital' system - if you want to invade the whole constellation you attack the capital and then the constellation wide bunker system kicks in.
But there are a few things you almost certainly (eventually) need to add into make the whole thing worth the effort for most constellations: 1 - Dynamic sec levels, IE if you over use a a system an the sec drops, ignore it and it goes up 2 - Move to a moon goo system that basically means you can mine everything on every moon but there's associated abundances of all the materials 3 - Moar sec regions (I'm generally in favour of this for all secs) |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
857
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:17:33 -
[3238] - Quote
I have managed to read most of this thread, but I feel like it is time to put out some ideas of my own. Fozzie Sovereignty has reminded me that that Eve is designed by the descendants of bloodthirsty Vikings. When the Vikings come to visit, you have four choices:
(1) You bring out a smaller force and fight them. They kill you. Not the worst thing, since death is not permanent in Eve, but bad for the ego. (2) You bring out a stronger force and fight them. In which case they try to scurry back to their ships and go somewhere else. (3) You hide inside your castle. In which case, they stare impotently at your castle, call you a coward, then get back in their ships and go somewhere else. Or they AFK camp you just out of spite. (4) You can pay them Danegeld to keep them from bothering you.
In Dominion Sovereignty, the Vikings have to bring big expensive siege equipment to get you out of your castle. They have to devote time, effort, and organization to besieging you. This creates some barriers to entry for newer players and rewards large, well-organized groups (warfare always will). Additionally, there isn't much that the Vikings can pillage from you outside your castle - there are no farms and fields to pillage. All of Eve's resources are renewable (NPC's, Belts, etc) or require time and effort to kill (e.g. POS, POCO's). Unless they catch an unlucky peasant (i.e. ratter or miner) out in his fields before he can get inside his castle, there really isn't anything the Vikings can do. This is very frustrating for would-be Vikings. It encourages options (3) and (4), which are bad.
I am all in favor of mechanics which encourage people to fight, but I do not think Fozzie Sovereignty is quite there yet.
In Fozzie Sovereignty, the Vikings don't have to bring big expensive siege equipment to get you out of your castle. They can punish you for your unwillingness to come out and fight, by starting a series of timers that will make life suck for you more and more and make you lose your space. Unless you are hyper vigilant and always ready to fight during your designated prime time - in which case you sometimes get a fight or the Vikings will just jump in their ships and scurry away. Of course, if you lose the fight, they can still start the timers ticking on you. The defender has to keep winning, which encourages blobbing. The attackers only have to win a few times before your defense cracks completely.
The need for hyper-vigilance is balanced by the four hour prime time window, which is not the most terrible idea if it was tweaked a bit. My recommendation is to give the defending alliance more choice. First, make it so that we can designate a different prime time for each constellation (if I only hold one system, it applies to that system), rather than one prime time for the whole alliance. Then, give additional choices:
(1) Select one 4-hour prime time window. (2) Select as much prime time as they want, as long as it is at least four hours total, and at least two 2-hour blocks. So, if someone wants "prime time" to be eight hours long, they have that choice. If someone wants it to be two 2-hour blocks, they have that choice. If someone wants it to be 23.5/7, they have that choice.
Why do I think this is better? Because I have a life. Asking me to guard my space for a continuous four-hour block is a huge commitment seven days a week. If I can split the commitment with my EUTZ friends, then we all get a chance to participate in sov warfare. Eve should not have to be a part-time job to participate in 0.0. Nor should I have to blob up with 10000 other players to cover my stuff when I want to go to the beach for a week.
Additionally, you could make it so there are benefits to having your space more vulnerable for longer time periods - such as better anomalies or other tangible benefits. Which leads to another proposal...
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
857
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:18:19 -
[3239] - Quote
In the alternative, CCP could just give us the farms and fields we were promised so long ago. Make taking sovereignty require significant effort. Then let us build things out in space that require defending, generate ISK when they are being tended, and give killmails. In short, I am thinking of a better version of an ESS. I would call it the Weapons Test Facility (WTF). It could work as described below.
You purchase a BPC for a WTF from an NPC R&D firm (or find one in an exploration site, or whatever). You then build that deployable, undock, and launch it into space, it goes out to a random spot in your solar system and anchors itself (with restrictions as to where it will anchor). There would be many different varieties. Some, much more expensive varieties, could require you to scan them down with probes. Others would appear on the scanner like current anomalies do. You then undock, warp to it, and use your ship to run weapons tests on behalf of the NPC firm, which can match you against opponents who span the full spectrum of the Eve PVE experience. You could even let the player choose what tests to run GÇô or have different WTFGÇÖs offer different experiences. Some tests would take a short amount of time, others would take longer (higher rewards). Exiting the simulation before you complete it voids all rewards and also ends the simulation completely. Thus, if you got interrupted by a hostile, you could exit the simulation and at least not have to worry about the rats (but lose all the rewards).
The WTF should not have have huge amounts of EHP or long reinforcement timers or, but could have high resistances. IGÇÖm thinking a few thousand EHP, a 5-10 minute reinforcement timer, and 60-80% resistances (depending on the version). After the short reinforcement timer expires, the attacker can either scoop (50-100m3 volume) or destroy the WTF. The defender can try to save it, whether by killing the attacker, driving him away, or remote repairing it (thus the resistances, but low EHP). The WTF should be relatively expensive, generate killmails, be very quick to anchor (instantaneous), but slow to unanchor (>5 minutes). They generate ISK (or LP) only when there is a pilot in space actively using it. Using it either puts the player into a simulation or a mini-game or something, it could be anything, as long as it is somewhat engaging, as hard to bot as current PVE, and makes more ISK/hour than other options.
This WTF simulator could look disturbingly similar to killing rats in anomalies or missions, or it could have a variety of other mini-games. It might be functionally no different than GÇ£flyingGÇ¥ your ship is currently, you just donGÇÖt actually move. Due to the way your ship completely interfaces with the scenario, if your ship is destroyed in the scenario, it can sometimes explode for real (blah blah blah lore reasons). There could be different versions of the deployable: with different costs and difficulty levels. For example, a Level 5 WTF might cost 250m ISK worth of materials to build, and generate 125m ISK/hour (or LP for that factionGÇÖs store), if you "tested" out a carrier at the Level 5 WTF. But, if hostiles chased you away from it, you stand to lose a substantial investment. It is an infinitely scalable system, without requiring mission hubs in 0.0 sov space. So, you can cram as many people as want to live in a system into there. Roaming gangs can now count on at least inflicting some pain, unless they move so slowly that you have time to unanchor and scoop it. Running away from it in the face of attackers has consequences. Yes, you save your ship, but you lose a significant item. It gives you something to defend against a roaming gang.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
110
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:18:32 -
[3240] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:Vigilanta wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m Listen to as much as I could stomach. When Fozzie got to the part where he talked about how much isk was being made in null and how "it's obviously valuable because people rent the space he proved that he doesn't understand the difference between isk (what you get in sov null from anomalies) and WEALTH (what you get more of if you know what you are doing outside, especially if you are doing it outside of sov null). the WEALTH faucets (LP and blue loot for examples) outside of null also sink isk which is good, but that doesn't matter to the individual whose wallet got fatter The presence of rents means null systems AREN'T valuable enough to take for your self (but are totally ok as a form of passive income for your alliance). The kinds of liquid isk you can make in null as a renter is nice (and that liquidity and ease of acquisition is a key selling point), but it has a hard ceiling that once you get there, people usually smarten up and go do the more lucrative things (like l5 blitzing, FW l4 missions and high sec incursions) If the main guy leading the charge for sov changes doesn't understand the above, the system he and his people develop when they get to he "why" stage (phase 3?) will be every bit as flawed as the last anomaly changes were (I'll refrain from linking that 4 year old dev blog just this once). You're supposedly the PVE-ist CSM we have, you should know this things as well , no? Did he actually say that? lord of mercy help us if he did. The way we rent space versus whether its valuable or not is up for debate. There is alot of systems that are basically given away just to generate ~any level of income~ form them. Something like 80% of the rent we collect comes from 5% of the best systems IN THE GAME. Im talking the perfect PVE systems in entire regions, your dead end, tons of advanced warning, lots of belts, ice, -.99 trusec systems. If you want a **** system there like 500 mil a month and you honestly could probably talk us down to 250 mil if you talked a good game. Better than moons? yes, but realize we sell our best space for this income, not just any nullsec system What a load of complete and utter BS. You don't rent for 500mill or even 250mill. There around 1.5 bill at least i mean some are like a ridiculous 10-13billion!. You shouldn't be allowed to rent full stop. You are lazy so and so who intact should be living in their own systems and getting income from this. What gives you the right to say we own this but we won't live in it, so we 'rent' it out. I hate the whole rental thing, its getting out of hand, and if CCP do nothing to stop it then ill be unsubbing for sure this time. Its wrong for the game. For me i would create a new instance of eve and let everyone else have a proper chance to start from the beginning, because anyone who has just started or even been playing a couple of years, either has to kiss someones ass, or will never ever get to the same level as the current large alliances, they just don't have the same options or opportunities. This is why people leave in droves. This is why other MMOs have many worlds so that everyone has a chance.
Guns, lots and lots guns. Really? have you ever talked to me about Darkeshi rental rates, dont call me a liar without a fact basis. What you dont get is that those same guns will allow me to extract rent from you in ANY sov system. I may not be able to own the sov but i can make sure you will pay me money by making your sov unusable. I can kill the ihub park a cloaky camper in your system with covert cyno for a few weeks ect. So your either going to rent or im going to extort you. CCP cant protect you from it without making the game not a sandbox.
You know why people rent space in eve? because they dont want the hastle of owning an controlling sov. They pay us to deal with that hastle, your are trying to remove a relationship that both sides are very very happy with. |
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
110
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:27:11 -
[3241] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Having watched the discussions about wealth in nullsec as an outsider, there are clearly a lot of assumptions made by various parties about the terms of the discussion--"optimal/suboptimal" becomes "possible/impossible," or ISK/hr is discussed without reference to the amount of preparation and effort and (character and player) skill required, and I'm sure there are many more ways in which the discussion gets blurred. Right in this thread, I've seen the assertion that any ratting opportunities in systems that might get traffic are worthless.
There are a lot of unstated assumptions flying around, and I don't think that helps to sort this out. So, unless you're prepared to go out and say that CCP Fozzie is lying or an idiot--in which case you might as well go fashion yourself a tinfoil hat--you have to start with the assumption that there actually is a gigantic amount of money being made in nullsec, and then figure out why it doesn't seem to be distributed or apportioned or available in a satisfactory way.
its so very very very relative though. Additionally you cant say a gigantic amount of money is being made in nullsec unless you compare it with say, LS, HS, WH space. On its own it might seem like a lot in comparison to other regions of space it may seem like nothing.
I would be interested to see fozzie present these numbers and learn more about the income of the game. I suspect we wont see it though and if it is anything like the battleships are fine graph things might happen that are not pleasant.
I have been in nullsec for 8 years, over half of that time i have been a ceo of a large corporation and I have been involved in the leadership of various alliances. With the exception of the top tier alliances the rest are not that rich, generally if you break down the moon income, and hell even the rental income to a per pilot basis it might buy each pvper like, a fitted battleship per month. fights like B-R took months to fully SRP. I have the advantage of being involved in some of these "massive" incomes once you put them into perspective not so massive. |
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:28:53 -
[3242] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:lilol' me wrote:Vigilanta wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m Listen to as much as I could stomach. When Fozzie got to the part where he talked about how much isk was being made in null and how "it's obviously valuable because people rent the space he proved that he doesn't understand the difference between isk (what you get in sov null from anomalies) and WEALTH (what you get more of if you know what you are doing outside, especially if you are doing it outside of sov null). the WEALTH faucets (LP and blue loot for examples) outside of null also sink isk which is good, but that doesn't matter to the individual whose wallet got fatter The presence of rents means null systems AREN'T valuable enough to take for your self (but are totally ok as a form of passive income for your alliance). The kinds of liquid isk you can make in null as a renter is nice (and that liquidity and ease of acquisition is a key selling point), but it has a hard ceiling that once you get there, people usually smarten up and go do the more lucrative things (like l5 blitzing, FW l4 missions and high sec incursions) If the main guy leading the charge for sov changes doesn't understand the above, the system he and his people develop when they get to he "why" stage (phase 3?) will be every bit as flawed as the last anomaly changes were (I'll refrain from linking that 4 year old dev blog just this once). You're supposedly the PVE-ist CSM we have, you should know this things as well , no? Did he actually say that? lord of mercy help us if he did. The way we rent space versus whether its valuable or not is up for debate. There is alot of systems that are basically given away just to generate ~any level of income~ form them. Something like 80% of the rent we collect comes from 5% of the best systems IN THE GAME. Im talking the perfect PVE systems in entire regions, your dead end, tons of advanced warning, lots of belts, ice, -.99 trusec systems. If you want a **** system there like 500 mil a month and you honestly could probably talk us down to 250 mil if you talked a good game. Better than moons? yes, but realize we sell our best space for this income, not just any nullsec system What a load of complete and utter BS. You don't rent for 500mill or even 250mill. There around 1.5 bill at least i mean some are like a ridiculous 10-13billion!. You shouldn't be allowed to rent full stop. You are lazy so and so who intact should be living in their own systems and getting income from this. What gives you the right to say we own this but we won't live in it, so we 'rent' it out. I hate the whole rental thing, its getting out of hand, and if CCP do nothing to stop it then ill be unsubbing for sure this time. Its wrong for the game. For me i would create a new instance of eve and let everyone else have a proper chance to start from the beginning, because anyone who has just started or even been playing a couple of years, either has to kiss someones ass, or will never ever get to the same level as the current large alliances, they just don't have the same options or opportunities. This is why people leave in droves. This is why other MMOs have many worlds so that everyone has a chance. Guns, lots and lots guns. Really? have you ever talked to me about Darkeshi rental rates, dont call me a liar without a fact basis. What you dont get is that those same guns will allow me to extract rent from you in ANY sov system. I may not be able to own the sov but i can make sure you will pay me money by making your sov unusable. I can kill the ihub park a cloaky camper in your system with covert cyno for a few weeks ect. So your either going to rent or im going to extort you. CCP cant protect you from it without making the game not a sandbox. You know why people rent space in eve? because they dont want the hastle of owning an controlling sov. They pay us to deal with that hastle, your are trying to remove a relationship that both sides are very very happy with.
Yes i have actually. you also charge an extra 3 billion for people who don't want to be in your rental alliance. and yes you are a liar. No its because they can't take sov because people like you n3 bring your 1000 people and supers and force them out thats why, The reason is because no one can get in sov because they can't hold it and are threatened. thats the truth nothing more. also if your alliance is taking sov then you should be forced to live there or lose it. |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution The Initiative.
407
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:31:30 -
[3243] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Elenahina wrote: 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.
Null is kind of supposed to be the end game, where dose people who have played this game for so long have to go to get away from the frigate game. SP should acually count for something, CCPs idea that newbro should be able to take sov is backwards. If you want to fly small gang pvp go do FW not null sec.
That's a supercap sized sense of entitlement you have there kid.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Ed Bever
Evolution Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:37:09 -
[3244] - Quote
Though the idea itself is interesting, i think there's some small tweaks that would be in order. For starters, i think the difference between the T1 and the T2 Entosis link is too large, and that the T2 link has a too short cycle time, and 250km range is silly. I understand you wish to provide the attackers some option to kite, but this makes them nigh invulnerable, give it 100-150km instead, so, if they go AFK during the cycle, they will actually DIE. In addition, the story doesn't exactly add up. I mean, WTF does Infomorph Psycology have to do with anything? Anchoring would make LOADS more sense. |
Bleyddyn apRhys
Synapse. The Kadeshi
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 21:39:57 -
[3245] - Quote
Suggestion: Allow an alliance to set prime timezone on a constellation basis, rather than alliance wide. I would think that would make it easier for multi-timezone alliances to provide content in all timezones.
Sorry if this has already been suggested and/or shot down but 162 pages... |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1495
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:05:54 -
[3246] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:its so very very very relative though. Additionally you cant say a gigantic amount of money is being made in nullsec unless you compare it with say, LS, HS, WH space. On its own it might seem like a lot in comparison to other regions of space it may seem like nothing.
I haven't done endgame WHs, but we ran C5s for money when I was in a WH. They were our statics, so we couldn't trigger capital escalations. We ran them in PVP-capable subcap fleets. We made more ISK running nullsec anoms in PVP-fit battlecruiser fleets when we found a suitable hole to nullsec. Once you include the time spent scanning and rolling and fighting (which at least was fun most of the time) the ISK/hr was enough to keep us in relatively cheap ships. We ran a mixed T1/T2 doctrine.
I've done vanguard incursions, though not seriously and not in anything fancier than a T2-fit T1 battleship. I don't remember any remarkable amounts of ISK. I do remember a fair amount of sitting around making 0 ISK/hr.
I've never made much from level 4s, but then I stopped running them quite a while ago, and I find myself physically incapable of clicking the Accept button on a mission now. It has nothing to do with the reward; CCP could multiply the payout by a factor of 10 and I'd still be sick and tired of them.
My point is not that it's impossible to make barrels of ISK under ideal circumstances outside of nullsec, but that it's neither automatic nor typical. The numbers thrown around for ISK/hr from running level 4s in high sec involve some next-level planning and execution, not to mention twisting the intended design of the mission system into something unrecognizable. The level of effort compared to running an anomaly is remarkable.
Also, if you look at where the money really is in high sec, it's with the players. High sec is like Vegas: the naive gamblers bet on the games, and the professional gamblers bet on the naive ones. Once you establish that--why is LP so profitable? because you're figuring out what other players want, going to where there are lots of those players, and then selling at the price they're willing to bear--then you look at null sec and you see a glaring limitation. Is the solution really to make Uncle CONCORD pay out more? or is there something more, dare I say, emergent that should happen? How?
Vigilanta wrote:fights like B-R took months to fully SRP. I have the advantage of being involved in some of these "massive" incomes once you put them into perspective not so massive.
And this is where you're right that it's relative: having never piloted anything more expensive than a Megathron into a conflict, I can't even imagine fielding the sort of iron that was fielded in B-R, and I can't imagine recovering from the loss in mere months.
So, to come back around to the topic: it seems to be one of the goals of this system to require less iron in order to challenge sov--although you may end up throwing a lot of iron at a hotly contested system, it's not an upfront cost of entry. Do you think there will be a cost reduction here, or not?
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1676
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:07:22 -
[3247] - Quote
Suggestion: If you decide not to allow a vulnerability timezone on a per constellation basis, I'd like to suggest the possibility of letting alliances pick a vulnerability timezone of more than four hours.
Why? The larger their vulnerability window, the better a new multiplier would be. This multiplier would [b]multiply the occupation defensive bonuses.
Example: 4h vulnerability per day = x1 multiplier 8h = x2 16h = x4
With any number of hours possible, and a multiplier proportionally changing.
The multiplier does not multiply the time it takes for a capture in itself, it multiplies to occupancy bonus. Meaning that if you're not using your space, you're not getting much additional time.
That's effectively a tradeoff of invulnerability time against added reaction time. It leaves small alliances the possibility to only be vulnerable for 4 hours, they have to react quickly to agressions, but again, they own a small space.
Larger alliances have more time to formup and defend their space, while at the same time exposing themselves way way more.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
|
Nick Bete
The Scope Gallente Federation
302
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:09:20 -
[3248] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote: ...You know why people rent space in eve? because they dont want the hastle of owning an controlling sov. They pay us to deal with that hastle, your are trying to remove a relationship that both sides are very very happy with.
As the extortionist you may be happy with the current status quo but, I rather doubt that the people paying your blood money are.
While you may be profiting from a broken and stagnant system it doesn't mean that's good for the overall health of the game.
|
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
76
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:09:26 -
[3249] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote: No your way of life is closest to what CCP could have wanted for WHs, not nullsec. okay, so your in a lowclass wh, what class? because from what ive seen most of c3 and below is not inhabited, unironically not unlike nullsec. Difference is 1 wh system supports ALOT more people than 1 NS system.
C2 static HS/C3.
C3 doesn't have a wspace static but a kspace static. That's why they are mostly occupied by PI alt.
Low class wormholes with kspace static can sustain 1 maybe 2 pilots. No more. Or 3 casuals players, but 2 actives players will eat each others very fast. Low class wormholes with wspace static lower then C4 can sustains maybe 10 pilots. No more.
That's because of the anomalies respawn system.
The nullsec npc respawn system makes perma-farming possible. Not in wormhole. If you farm your home you can wait days to get a single 20 to 30m spawn.
That's why i think nullsec systems, even with bad sec status can sustain a lot more players then any low class wormhole system (except C4 with 2 wspace statics).
The point is you cannot choose when you farm in low class wormhole. You farm when you can. That's a huuuuuuge difference. Everything is about opportunities in low clas, nullsec is a lot more stable and predictable.
It is the same for belt and industry.
And the better, in nullsec you have also wormhole connexions, so you can easily go farm them ! |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:10:41 -
[3250] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:
Guns, lots and lots guns. Really? have you ever talked to me about Darkeshi rental rates, dont call me a liar without a fact basis. What you dont get is that those same guns will allow me to extract rent from you in ANY sov system. I may not be able to own the sov but i can make sure you will pay me money by making your sov unusable. I can kill the ihub park a cloaky camper in your system with covert cyno for a few weeks ect. So your either going to rent or im going to extort you. CCP cant protect you from it without making the game not a sandbox.
You know why people rent space in eve? because they dont want the hastle of owning an controlling sov. They pay us to deal with that hastle, your are trying to remove a relationship that both sides are very very happy with.
Of course anyone can be annoying enough to make a system bad to live in but extortion models havent really worked out all that well in the past. Renting has worked because taking and threatening sov has been so difficult and time-consuming.
First kill defensive SBU's, then anchor SBU and then online SBU. Unless you have a supercap blob thats hours and hours of effort. The new system threatens all that, since challenging sov will be a whole lot easier and can now be completed in less than 30 minutes. When the pings for sov defence of renters go out I dont see all nullsec pvp alliances rushing to do that, even less if it means they have to go far. Given response times of large entities its not unlikely they wont form up in time before the events are finished.
Will renters actually pay a lot when they cant use their systems productively for x amount of days pr month? I dont see a lot of pvp alliances jumping to defend them either because they look at renters as worthlesss scrubs and have tolerated them only because of isk generated.
If you are director for rental agreements prepare for tons of complaints, convo's, rent rebating, pushing alliance/coaliton mates to respond to sov attacks.The latter will not be easy. The response to defending renters have in general been really bad because they are the lowest caste of eve players. The renter manager role will be the worst role to have and will lead to burnout of a lot of people.
The sov attacks wont only happen because someone really wanted that system, but because it might generate a combat situation. Look at what PL are doing in Catch with Brave. Not that I know the inner workings of PL, but I really really doubt they want Catch. But challenging Brave Sov forces a response and fighting ensues. PL farms for kills using the mechanics and given their amount of veteran players and massive cap/supercap strength its easy for them to do this under current mechanics. With Fozzie Sov a whole lot more will do just that, and not only to renters.
Nullsec powerblocs assertions that this wont harm them has no factual basis, and like the trollceptor should rather be seen as posturing. Saying nothing will be different under the new system is political propaganda, like the trollceptor. I honestly think it's a tactic to change the proposed system before its implemented. |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6561
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:17:19 -
[3251] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:Nullsec powerblocs assertions that this wont harm them has no factual basis, and like the trollceptor should rather be seen as posturing. Saying nothing will be different under the new system is political propaganda, like the trollceptor. I honestly think it's a tactic to change the proposed system before its implemented. Yeah don't listen to those people, they're just dreamers who will soon be woken up from their 0.0 dream
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:21:45 -
[3252] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Nullsec powerblocs assertions that this wont harm them has no factual basis, and like the trollceptor should rather be seen as posturing. Saying nothing will be different under the new system is political propaganda, like the trollceptor. I honestly think it's a tactic to change the proposed system before its implemented. Yeah don't listen to those people, they're just dreamers who will soon be woken up from their 0.0 dream
The sarcasm is strong in this one...
Goons play the political meta better than ANYONE else in this game. CFC is the probably the coalition who will be hurt the least by all this to begin with, and maybe even longterm. But not all coalitions have your level of organisation and common culture. My biggest complaint being in the CFC was the mono-culture. I didnt perceive TNT, which I was part of, to have any culture of its own.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:24:49 -
[3253] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Vigilanta wrote:Did he actually say that? lord of mercy help us if he did. In response to a question about why he tackled the "taking and holding" of sov instead of the "reasons why we fight for sov:" CCP Fozzie wrote:For a couple of reasons. One is that we have been tackling why for quite a long time, like I said. The changes we've been making throughout the last couple of years have been aimed towards that. And they have been successful. I know there's a lot of people who claim that nullsec is completely useless. I mean, there's obviously ways in which the economic [?] could be improved in nullsec, especially in certain areas like mining. But we can see how much money people are making in nullsec, and it is [...] a gigantic amount. Having watched the discussions about wealth in nullsec as an outsider, there are clearly a lot of assumptions made by various parties about the terms of the discussion--"optimal/suboptimal" becomes "possible/impossible," or ISK/hr is discussed without reference to the amount of preparation and effort and (character and player) skill required, and I'm sure there are many more ways in which the discussion gets blurred. Right in this thread, I've seen the assertion that any ratting opportunities in systems that might get traffic are worthless. There are a lot of unstated assumptions flying around, and I don't think that helps to sort this out. So, unless you're prepared to go out and say that CCP Fozzie is lying or an idiot--in which case you might as well go fashion yourself a tinfoil hat--you have to start with the assumption that there actually is a gigantic amount of money being made in nullsec, and then figure out why it doesn't seem to be distributed or apportioned or available in a satisfactory way.
There IS a gigantic amount of money being made in null. That's because the main way to make (individual) money spews liquid isk rather than the LP, Deadspace/faction mods, blue loot etc of other ways.
But let me give you a personal and easily testable example.
I have 2 ratting characters in Delve. I fly double Rattlesnakes and do havens and sanctums. With that set up I generally pull in 25 mil per tick (ie every 20 minutes) per toon for a grand total (before double taxing) of 150 mil per hour. Ratters know that's pretty good.
Then I have a toon in the Minmatar Militia. I created this toon last year and trained her specifically for a Purifier. She can't even use tech2 torp launchers yet. I do fw lvl 4 missions in this manner and wait till Minnie is at least at tier 4 to cash out. you don't make 600 mil per hour anymore because of saturation of the market, but by my spread sheet I make between 200-250 mil per hour.
Now look my in the electronic eye and tell me with a straight internet face that you can't find the incredible imbalance in being able to make more with 1 toon in a stealth bomber than you can with 2 toons in faction battleships.
And I can the same thing with one toon in high sec blitzing lvl 4 burner missions for sisters of EVE with only a stable of 3 frig sized ships (Daredevil, Dramiel and Worm).
And as an individual pilot with a vindicator in a shiny fleet I can make 140ish mil per hour doing incursions with a fleet that has the FC doing all the work for me.
And I can take my carrier to low sec and run lvl 5 missions and make WAY more. Hell, my wormhole Gila by itself can almost make as much as my rattlesnake crew (if I don't die, wormhole space is the only space that actually does risk/reward right in the entire game).
It's not like CCP needs to up anomaly pay, they need to 100% totally rethink sov null pve to make it's rewards now tank the whole damn economy while being lucrative enough to give an actual reason to be there rather than in a stealth bomber in Black Rise... Replacing anomalies with some kind of mission structure would help. |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:38:55 -
[3254] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: It's not like CCP needs to up anomaly pay, they need to 100% totally rethink sov null pve to make it's rewards now tank the whole damn economy while being lucrative enough to give an actual reason to be there rather than in a stealth bomber in Black Rise... Replacing anomalies with some kind of mission structure would help.
How much do you spend to replace pvp ships you lose? What is the alliance level income for your group compared to a FW alliance? The ISK in null is on corp and alliance level. That funds SRP, which means null players can participate in large fleets without risking a whole lot.
Ratting in Null is not a great deal of ISK but its not bad either. In good systems you can make 150M pr hour, cash in hand. Missions in null are there but in npc space. Given the amount of local residents who wont take kindly to you running their missions its not available for most nullsec sov holders.
But the good isk in low has made lowsec lively. There are people in most system and fights can be had. Not sure null needs more buffing for personal income. But I also digress, the rewards of sov are not on the table for this change in sov-taking mechanics.
|
Benilopax
The Ashen Lion Syndicate The Ashen Syndicate
443
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:39:01 -
[3255] - Quote
Did the break out threads happen?
...
|
Kaliba Mort
Patriotic Tendencies Executive Outcomes
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:50:17 -
[3256] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:[quote=Vigilanta] First kill defensive SBU's, then anchor SBU and then online SBU. Unless you have a supercap blob thats hours and hours of effort.
Or you know, use 10 dreads and one cycle the SBUs - 5 minutes.
But then even large coalitions used "siege fleet" bombers to RF towers and SBUs for various reasons. Those reasons have nothing to do with availability or lack of supercaps. It has more to do with the risk vs. reward vs. effort triangle.
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1498
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:54:28 -
[3257] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Then I have a toon in the Minmatar Militia. I created this toon last year and trained her specifically for a Purifier. She can't even use tech2 torp launchers yet. I do fw lvl 4 missions in this manner and wait till Minnie is at least at tier 4 to cash out. you don't make 600 mil per hour anymore because of saturation of the market, but by my spread sheet I make between 200-250 mil per hour. Now look my in the electronic eye and tell me with a straight internet face that you can't find the incredible imbalance in being able to make more with 1 toon in a stealth bomber than you can with 2 toons in faction battleships.
I'm not going to debate that FW is, um, an interesting case. My former FC, now unsubbed, orbited buttons to make something like 6Bn ISK so that he wouldn't have to worry about ISK for a good while. (I tried, on another character, and gave up in despair. I would rather watch paint dry: at least I would know that at the end, I'd done something to improve the house.)
But that's LP, right? LP has the value it has because you find out how to maximally spend it to satisfy player demand on the market, right? And you presumably do a better job of hauling your goods to market than the miserable freighters full of implants that end up on Bat Country's killboard, yes? But you're still putting the stuff in space, in the game, on the way to market. That's emergent play! We like that.
Now, consider that one of my old alliance-mates, since unsubscribed, had a million LP and no clear idea what to do with it. I can't remember what kind of LP, but in that quantity it hardly matters. Hell, I have a bunch of it lying around, because :effort:, and because I'm currently playing Skill Training Online.
The (potential) value of LP, and the way that value is realized, exposes one of the systemic flaws in nullsec. The nearest equivalents (because they produce goods that are sold to players) are moons and mining, and what state are those in? Where are they sold?
Jenn aSide wrote:And I can the same thing with one toon in high sec blitzing lvl 4 burner missions for sisters of EVE with only a stable of 3 frig sized ships (Daredevil, Dramiel and Worm).
And as an individual pilot with a vindicator in a shiny fleet I can make 140ish mil per hour doing incursions with a fleet that has the FC doing all the work for me.
And I can take my carrier to low sec and run lvl 5 missions and make WAY more. Hell, my wormhole Gila by itself can almost make as much as my rattlesnake crew (if I don't die, wormhole space is the only space that actually does risk/reward right in the entire game).
1) yes, as I mentioned, you can twist the missioning system until it screams. I believe that people like you who take the considerable, and unusual extra effort to wring out every last bit of reward from the system should be compensated for it. I also believe that there are not many of you. After all, every single AFKtar is a judgment that a considerable loss in ISK/hr is worth not having to pay attention to ratting, right? But you do this because you enjoy it.
2) OK, and how many people do that? When you factor in all the flying to different locations, what's your ISK/hr? What's the up-front investment necessary to even get in to do that? I bet that it's a lot more than an AFKtar, let alone an old (and probably obsolete) ratting Talos.
3) You have a carrier. I can't even fly one. How many people can? and of those, how many people are confident enough to put them at risk in low sec, running L5s?
Jenn aSide wrote:It's not like CCP needs to up anomaly pay, they need to 100% totally rethink sov null pve to make it's rewards now tank the whole damn economy while being lucrative enough to give an actual reason to be there rather than in a stealth bomber in Black Rise... Replacing anomalies with some kind of mission structure would help.
According to various noises from CCP, missions are on the (eventual) chopping block.
You'll have no argument from me about the absurdity of the coward Atron/billionaire SB problem.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:57:47 -
[3258] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:SNIP
LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.
That would be dear leaders job to motivate us. And that's 13,145 characters to cover all of offense. And we can be motivated to do perform at that level, we did after all ground down Fountain in bombers for example. Those he ignore history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12037
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:59:27 -
[3259] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: It's been fun watching you do a 180 on every ideal you have projected over other subjects. Here you are being against people playing the game when in the justification of ganking hapless freighters in hisec you are all about playing the game and HTFU.
Heh, that just goes to show you don't understand me, or my point of view. (but then, you weren't trying, you just want something to rail against)
I'm fully in favor of harassing renters. I did it for a long time. But I'd like to them to actually have a chance.
There are no "helpless" freighters in highsec, because highsec is just so very safe. You have to fail extremely hard to die under those circumstances.
But this? This is like adding a zero to Concord response time. You know, making it possible to gank a freighter with four catalysts. I'd be against that too, if they proposed it. This amounts to lowering the bar so far, that what once required a commitment of several Dreadnaughts now require the commitment of a frigate and a handful of money.
There is almost no commitment on the part of the defender, and everything to gain, up to and including the destruction of an iHub. I'm against turning the game into a job for everyone, no matter what part of space they live in, and that's what this does for sov holders.
Quote: It's good at least knowing that all Church of HTFU dogma is as false as I assumed it to be.
No, that's just your confirmation bias talking. I'm not a goon, either, much as though you'd delight in assuming that anyone who disagrees with your inane ranting is one.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
181
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:00:11 -
[3260] - Quote
[
According to various noises from CCP, missions are on the (eventual) chopping block.
You'll have no argument from me about the absurdity of the coward Atron/billionaire SB problem.[/quote]
if that has any truth to then why are they working on cruiser burner missions.. just stop already and please stick to topic.
|
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:01:29 -
[3261] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote: This would also mean there are actually 40K PLAYERS in CFC, and the answer is that there isnt. I would like to see all players multiboxing all their alts for both these things. It would be killmail farming heaven for everyone else, unless they all have 4-10 monitors each.
What? Multi boxing can be done on 1 screen with various programs.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:05:56 -
[3262] - Quote
Kaliba Mort wrote:Dark Spite wrote:[quote=Vigilanta] First kill defensive SBU's, then anchor SBU and then online SBU. Unless you have a supercap blob thats hours and hours of effort. Or you know, use 10 dreads and one cycle the SBUs - 5 minutes. But then even large coalitions used "siege fleet" bombers to RF towers and SBUs for various reasons. Those reasons have nothing to do with availability or lack of supercaps. It has more to do with the risk vs. reward vs. effort triangle.
Dreads are nice, but also means a lot more risk. In a system with 4 gates thats 15 minutes plus align and warp time. Means a lot more risk, and not everyone can afford to risk having 10 dreads on the field for 20 minutes. Having 200 bombers saves a lot of time compared to having 20-40.
Entosis somewhat levels the time invested for all groups, which means more conflict since smaller groups can force timers without going bat-**** crazy from structure bashing. Hopefully that means more conflict because its so much easier to force a response than currently. This is the part of the proposal that could invigorate null conflict. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
352
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:08:53 -
[3263] - Quote
I hope CCP reads this and takes note.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1609
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:13:12 -
[3264] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m he'll ignore it just like he's ignored cloaky camping which also has an impact on system indexes.. he's just trying to keep heat off his behind.. he's lying his behind off.. gameplay has became cloaky afk camping and nothing has been done about it. he pretends there isn't an issue, but if there's hundreds of threads about it.. why not someone from ccp deal with it.. oh that's right .. AFK CLOAKY CAMPING is active gameplay....psssssssssssssssht
You may not get the answer you expect, if seeing a cloaky camper in system makes you worry , he may just remove what it is that makes you worry.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:15:29 -
[3265] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month. I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina. It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive. And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me. I have no doubt in what you have said but realistically it probably won't happen because herding over a thousand players for more than a moth just to troll a system pushes the boundary, yeah a few hundred here and there and maybe a week or two at a time but I seriously doubt that even GSF has the pull to keep its numbers high and the attrition low for more that a month of boring, tedious play, especially if they are having to do it on multiple alts, lets face the facts, there aren't as many GSF individual players are there are members. How many play in BRAVE just to have more fun/hour?
It's amazing how many times peoples confirmation biases are tossed about with respect to the CFC. You just don't get it, when people say we can't be motivated to do something wrist slittingly bad to them, repeatedly for months, we will do it, just because we can then get off on proving you wrong. Add in that this mechanic for sov as proposed is hilariously open to abuse by a group motivated enough to abuse it to destruction and you have the recipe for a perfect fire storm. The CFC will burn new eden sov null to the ground using these mechanics.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12037
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:16:25 -
[3266] - Quote
Oh yeah, someone brought up Dreadnaughts, so now I have a question. What the heck are Dreadnaughts good for anymore? Will they be rebalanced to find a new role?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
720
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:19:22 -
[3267] - Quote
Pekin Warbeck wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
snip
m Wow, just, wow. I assume you are joking. You don't implement a flawed, exploitable system on the basis of 'well we can always patch it up later' ffs.
If CCP pre-nerfed everything that people were able to theorycraft into a disaster, nothing in EVE would ever be useable.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12037
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:20:26 -
[3268] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: If CCP pre-nerfed everything that people were able to theorycraft into a disaster, nothing in EVE would ever be useable.
They already do that for Caldari.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Iain Cariaba
1106
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:21:16 -
[3269] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh yeah, someone brought up Dreadnaughts, so now I have a question. What the heck are Dreadnaughts good for anymore? Will they be rebalanced to find a new role? POS bashing, c6 wormhole escalations, and POS bashing.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:22:12 -
[3270] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh yeah, someone brought up Dreadnaughts, so now I have a question. What the heck are Dreadnaughts good for anymore? Will they be rebalanced to find a new role?
Still really good for POS bashes and killing other capitals. Dont really see the need for rebalancing them, |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
720
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:25:39 -
[3271] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:SNIP
LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.
That would be dear leaders job to motivate us. And that's 13,145 characters to cover all of offense. And we can be motivated to do perform at that level, we did after all ground down Fountain in bombers for example. Those he ignore history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
Fountain had an endgame, a light at the end of the tunnel. That will no longer be the case, you'll have to constantly beat down people who contest your ownership of the whole of nullsec, assuming you actually manage to capture as much space as your alliance seems to think it can.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1609
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:26:55 -
[3272] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh yeah, someone brought up Dreadnaughts, so now I have a question. What the heck are Dreadnaughts good for anymore? Will they be rebalanced to find a new role? According to the link to the podcast posted my Mike A earlier, the answer is Yes Gäó but not yet. He also answers, your questions on cloaky camping in an interesting way, that may remove your worries, possibly not the way you might expect though........
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
720
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:29:38 -
[3273] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh yeah, someone brought up Dreadnaughts, so now I have a question. What the heck are Dreadnaughts good for anymore? Will they be rebalanced to find a new role?
POSs, escalating. Asaki (how do you spell that?) was started over a Cobalt moon, not particularly special or rare. And yet it spawned a massive supercap fight.
Fights will still escalate in the new system, even without mountains of EHP to grind though.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
720
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:36:38 -
[3274] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: If CCP pre-nerfed everything that people were able to theorycraft into a disaster, nothing in EVE would ever be useable.
They already do that for Caldari. Yea, that's why everyone is flying Tengus.
Caldari are fine, missiles are hit or miss in terms of usefulness.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12037
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:36:46 -
[3275] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: Fights will still escalate in the new system, even without mountains of EHP to grind though.
I suspect so, I merely wonder now that the paradigm is shifting to **** jousting in small disposable ships (like FW), whether or not people will commit expensive, vulnerable assets if they can get the job done without it.
"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.
12037
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:37:42 -
[3276] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: If CCP pre-nerfed everything that people were able to theorycraft into a disaster, nothing in EVE would ever be useable.
They already do that for Caldari. Yea, that's why everyone is flying Tengus. Caldari are fine, missiles are hit or miss in terms of usefulness.
One Caldari ship is fine, anyway. Well, that and the Falcon, but we all know why that is.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1109
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:47:20 -
[3277] - Quote
There are two metrics by which null sec measure success. Strategic objective and isk war. Might i suggest we use the isk war to have an impact on the timers? If the attacker over the preceeding days/ maybe even weeks is winning then the timer would start to shift towards their prime time and even if they overwhelming lock down the area and defeat the resisdents over and over completely switch to their prime for that system. This would spread the battle for control over even more time and allow invasion across time zones which under the suggested system looks tricky. It would also add depth via feints where you reinforce one system but then only contest the reinforce in different parts of the constellation in order to move the tz for those systems when you win a local victory and then reinforce those?
Money at its root is a form of rationing.
When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
|
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
4225
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:47:56 -
[3278] - Quote
I love this change so much that I can't ever fully express it :) Finally a way to actually make NS randoms interact with you.
Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/
|
Ramman K'arojic
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:53:25 -
[3279] - Quote
Martin Vanzyl wrote:Entosis Link ranges are stupidly large.
Scale the Entosis Link range. The smaller ship you fit it to, the less range it has. Frig = 5 - 15km Cruiser = 15 - 30km BC = 30 - 40km BS = 50 - 60 Cap = 60 < ....
Etc. Not only will this make a 'logical sense', small comm array on smaller ship means it needs to be closer to link with the appropriate strength to the station's systems etc, it also forces the attackers in closer, where they can be engaged by defenders. Another solution could be to limit the Entosis to BS, cap and super hulls.
I suggest CPP ditch the T2 version - and make Entosis Link come in different sizes and each size has a different range, and activation time.
Say even BS -200km and Cap 300km
Giving more a dynamic play option.
Anyway just 2 isk |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30780
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 00:10:44 -
[3280] - Quote
250 km is the hard limit for ship lock ranges, might even be 245, I don't remember. Caps included. 250 km is just a figure that means 'within all possible lock range.'
Help, I can't download EVE
|
|
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 00:13:55 -
[3281] - Quote
@ CCP- +1 on the changes. Love it
When I was brand new to EVE I had the following impression:
Hi Sec- Safe, a place where you could skill up until you were ready to go do what you really wanted to Low Sec- Dangerous, money to be made- people will blow you up WH Space- Did not know it existed Null- Where you go to PVP
Now that I have been around for a bit longer...
Hi Sec- Safe but you will get war decd and ganked Low sec- Where you go to PVP WH Space- Dangerous, money to be made- people will blow you up NULL- Vast empty carebear land...... NPC Null- not sure yet
Null needs a change.
And pease do not buff income....from this thread i hear null folks who cant be asked to defend their turf or want to consolidate to a smaller region but make the same isk. Just no
Thanks.
Note: I dont post often but this is a fascinating topic. {gets popcorn out of microwave} |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30781
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 00:18:51 -
[3282] - Quote
How likely are vulnerability windows tied to server reinforcement, and in part, an effort to mitigate TiDi.
If that's a significant factor in making everyone commit to a time window, arguments against are rather futile.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
291
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 00:26:57 -
[3283] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Fountain had an endgame, a light at the end of the tunnel. That will no longer be the case, you'll have to constantly beat down people who contest your ownership of the whole of nullsec, assuming you actually manage to capture as much space as your alliance seems to think it can.
Who's planning to capture anything? Seriously, we're a bunch of retardly masochistic idiots who'll beat our heads against a wall for months on the promise of 'eventually, it'll feel good when we stop!' and 'this hurts everyone else more'. We're not going to do this to take space. We're going to do this to screw other people.
We probably won't even give much of a damn if it leaves all of Null a smoking crater. Before this actually goes live, all of our personal assets will be in safe lowsec or NPC null stations just like S2N's pastebin shows them planning. Our moon operations will still take just as much effort for people to hurt - and we'll still be able to respond w/fleets just like we do now - all with the added benefit of doing all our ratting in other peoples' space while we take it away from them just to watch it burn.
Really, what's the downside to this for us? We don't have sov bills?
This isn't going to do what CCP wants. It's not going to drive fights, it's going to produce a whole lot of griefing. And it's not going to stop until we get tired of it - and if you think we'll get tired of it any time soon, MiniLuv's been active how many years? Goons have been scamming people for how many years?
As the scorpion said to the frog: it's our nature.
Don't let us do this. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
181
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 00:36:16 -
[3284] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m he'll ignore it just like he's ignored cloaky camping which also has an impact on system indexes.. he's just trying to keep heat off his behind.. he's lying his behind off.. gameplay has became cloaky afk camping and nothing has been done about it. he pretends there isn't an issue, but if there's hundreds of threads about it.. why not someone from ccp deal with it.. oh that's right .. AFK CLOAKY CAMPING is active gameplay....psssssssssssssssht You may not get the answer you expect, if seeing a cloaky camper in system makes you worry , he may just remove what it is that makes you worry.
then I highly doubt he removes himself from eve online then if he did.. then id really celebrate. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
293
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 00:41:24 -
[3285] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Don't let us do this. If it really gets that bad, just obscene fitting reqs on the T2 version = trollceptors now have to orbit within web scram range and can't warp off for 5 minute cycles = lots and lots more dead interceptors |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
291
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 00:44:05 -
[3286] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Don't let us do this. If it really gets that bad, just obscene fitting reqs on the T2 version = trollceptors now have to orbit within web scram range and can't warp off for 5 minute cycles = lots and lots more dead interceptors
Trolling people with this won't require interceptors. T3s are enough - and we'll use them. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6561
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 00:46:12 -
[3287] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Fountain had an endgame, a light at the end of the tunnel. That will no longer be the case, you'll have to constantly beat down people who contest your ownership of the whole of nullsec, assuming you actually manage to capture as much space as your alliance seems to think it can. Who's planning to capture anything? Seriously, we're a bunch of retardly masochistic idiots who'll beat our heads against a wall for months on the promise of 'eventually, it'll feel good when we stop!' and 'this hurts everyone else more'. We're not going to do this to take space. We're going to do this to screw other people. We probably won't even give much of a damn if it leaves all of Null a smoking crater. Before this actually goes live, all of our personal assets will be in safe lowsec or NPC null stations just like S2N's pastebin shows them planning. Our moon operations will still take just as much effort for people to hurt - and we'll still be able to respond w/fleets just like we do now - all with the added benefit of doing all our ratting in other peoples' space while we take it away from them just to watch it burn. Really, what's the downside to this for us? We don't have sov bills? This isn't going to do what CCP wants. It's not going to drive fights, it's going to produce a whole lot of griefing. And it's not going to stop until we get tired of it - and if you think we'll get tired of it any time soon, MiniLuv's been active how many years? Goons have been scamming people for how many years? As the scorpion said to the frog: it's our nature. Don't let us do this. No you have to do it. This is eve online, it's harsh cold and probably sovless in a bit.
Finally CCP will free us from the shackles of sov where everyone else couldn't with the outstanding mechanics
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
294
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 00:50:16 -
[3288] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Trolling people with this won't require interceptors. T3s are enough - and we'll use them. Well at least the broken record piping out of the propoganda machine has skipped onto a new track.
So we're now onto trolled up T3s....let me guess...you'll threaten to do this with absolutely anything that can't be bubbled to try and change the mechanic which makes all your desolate backyards vulnerable before we get a chance to see it?
Not transparent at all. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6561
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 00:51:40 -
[3289] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m he'll ignore it just like he's ignored cloaky camping which also has an impact on system indexes.. he's just trying to keep heat off his behind.. he's lying his behind off.. gameplay has became cloaky afk camping and nothing has been done about it. he pretends there isn't an issue, but if there's hundreds of threads about it.. why not someone from ccp deal with it.. oh that's right .. AFK CLOAKY CAMPING is active gameplay....psssssssssssssssht You may not get the answer you expect, if seeing a cloaky camper in system makes you worry , he may just remove what it is that makes you worry. then I highly doubt he removes himself from eve online then if he did.. then id really celebrate. they mean your ship will explode
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Specia1 K
State War Academy Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 00:56:51 -
[3290] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:Vigilanta wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.
He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark
'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"
Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.
Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.
m Listen to as much as I could stomach. When Fozzie got to the part where he talked about how much isk was being made in null and how "it's obviously valuable because people rent the space he proved that he doesn't understand the difference between isk (what you get in sov null from anomalies) and WEALTH (what you get more of if you know what you are doing outside, especially if you are doing it outside of sov null). the WEALTH faucets (LP and blue loot for examples) outside of null also sink isk which is good, but that doesn't matter to the individual whose wallet got fatter The presence of rents means null systems AREN'T valuable enough to take for your self (but are totally ok as a form of passive income for your alliance). The kinds of liquid isk you can make in null as a renter is nice (and that liquidity and ease of acquisition is a key selling point), but it has a hard ceiling that once you get there, people usually smarten up and go do the more lucrative things (like l5 blitzing, FW l4 missions and high sec incursions) If the main guy leading the charge for sov changes doesn't understand the above, the system he and his people develop when they get to he "why" stage (phase 3?) will be every bit as flawed as the last anomaly changes were (I'll refrain from linking that 4 year old dev blog just this once). You're supposedly the PVE-ist CSM we have, you should know this things as well , no? Did he actually say that? lord of mercy help us if he did. The way we rent space versus whether its valuable or not is up for debate. There is alot of systems that are basically given away just to generate ~any level of income~ form them. Something like 80% of the rent we collect comes from 5% of the best systems IN THE GAME. Im talking the perfect PVE systems in entire regions, your dead end, tons of advanced warning, lots of belts, ice, -.99 trusec systems. If you want a **** system there like 500 mil a month and you honestly could probably talk us down to 250 mil if you talked a good game. Better than moons? yes, but realize we sell our best space for this income, not just any nullsec system What a load of complete and utter BS. You don't rent for 500mill or even 250mill. There around 1.5 bill at least i mean some are like a ridiculous 10-13billion!. You shouldn't be allowed to rent full stop. You are lazy so and so who intact should be living in their own systems and getting income from this. What gives you the right to say we own this but we won't live in it, so we 'rent' it out. I hate the whole rental thing, its getting out of hand, and if CCP do nothing to stop it then ill be unsubbing for sure this time. Its wrong for the game. For me i would create a new instance of eve and let everyone else have a proper chance to start from the beginning, because anyone who has just started or even been playing a couple of years, either has to kiss someones ass, or will never ever get to the same level as the current large alliances, they just don't have the same options or opportunities. This is why people leave in droves. This is why other MMOs have many worlds so that everyone has a chance.
Yes. Reboot and start Eve2 |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6561
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 01:15:27 -
[3291] - Quote
Specia1 K wrote:lilol' me wrote: For me i would create a new instance of eve and let everyone else have a proper chance to start from the beginning, because anyone who has just started or even been playing a couple of years, either has to kiss someones ass, or will never ever get to the same level as the current large alliances, they just don't have the same options or opportunities. This is why people leave in droves. This is why other MMOs have many worlds so that everyone has a chance.
Yes. Reboot and start Eve2 Is this like some kind of star citizen reference
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Specia1 K
State War Academy Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 01:24:34 -
[3292] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Specia1 K wrote:lilol' me wrote: For me i would create a new instance of eve and let everyone else have a proper chance to start from the beginning, because anyone who has just started or even been playing a couple of years, either has to kiss someones ass, or will never ever get to the same level as the current large alliances, they just don't have the same options or opportunities. This is why people leave in droves. This is why other MMOs have many worlds so that everyone has a chance.
Yes. Reboot and start Eve2 Is this like some kind of star citizen reference
No it is a lesson in the realities of the human condition.
"You always get a special kick on opening day, no matter how many you go through. You look forward to it like a birthday party when you're a kid. You think something wonderful is going to happen."
Joe DiMaggio |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1063
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 01:36:00 -
[3293] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Ok, one point that seems to be being avoided or missed, If as some fear, goons send a swarm across new eden capturing everything as content for their players. Yes they can be disruptive, and yes, there will be lots of fights, and yes, they can capture lots of systems..
What then?
Are they going to sit there bored out of their brains?
No they will go home, back to their core, and then they can be taken back. You haven't seen alliance fail-cascade and flip to alliances of another coalition have you?
It will just be two huge coalitions with gate camps all around to keep the roamers and griefers out. Then they will have their token wars. Bit like now but worse.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
294
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 01:38:13 -
[3294] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:It will just be two huge coalitions with gate camps all around If they get their way with not allowing interdiction nullified ships use the module then yep, this. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1063
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 01:48:11 -
[3295] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Edit: Hmmm ... flip all systems to, "Fozzie sucks" corporation, soon before leaving. Ha ha ha. I can just imagine the Verite Map-over-time:, it gets to the month of the change, flashes up Fozzie Sucks in big letters across the map, before going black . Your not an alt of one of us are you? Nah, that is just me being playful. Goons are pretend evil, like kids wearing Darth Vader costumes for Halloween.Eli Apol wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:It will just be two huge coalitions with gate camps all around If they get their way with not allowing interdiction nullified ships use the module then yep, this. This little corporation nearly took Y-M from a 1500 alliance under the current mechanics. We had to bore them out and just keep grinding SOV in overwhelming force.
The trouble is that Low Sec isn't the next step from High Sec, if it was a valid place to build a large alliance then Null Sec would not be stagnant, right now.
Null is a symptom of bad Low Sec.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
721
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 02:12:49 -
[3296] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Don't let us do this. If it really gets that bad, just obscene fitting reqs on the T2 version = trollceptors now have to orbit within web scram range and can't warp off for 5 minute cycles = lots and lots more dead interceptors Trolling people with this won't require interceptors. T3s are enough - and we'll use them.
Great, you'll be slower, more expensive, and all the easier to kill. Please do use T3s.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
291
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 02:18:39 -
[3297] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Trolling people with this won't require interceptors. T3s are enough - and we'll use them. Well at least the broken record piping out of the propoganda machine has skipped onto a new track. So we're now onto trolled up T3s....let me guess...you'll threaten to do this with absolutely anything that can't be bubbled to try and change the mechanic which makes all your desolate backyards vulnerable before we get a chance to see it? Not transparent at all.
Oh, I certainly think that if they let us, we'll use interceptors. And I also think that if they don't, that'll go a long way to resolving the problem. But yes, we'll troll with whatever they let us troll with: interceptors, T3s, covops bringing in blops gangs... we're going to be the same trollish jackasses we are now. The Entosis Link itself will let us do that. Giving us fast-moving ships that can burn off-grid rather than actually giving you a fight will only make it easier. |
Nou Mene
Out of Focus Odin's Call
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 02:30:58 -
[3298] - Quote
I overall like the proposed changes. Mostly i like the no-grinding policy. A couple of opinions:
-About 4hr timer. In mi opinion any kind of protection should go away, 4-8hr protection is acceptable maybe. I'll try to explain. Many ppl argue that taking sov would be too easy and that could make alliances lose FULLY upgraded systems, when i think, FULL UPGRADES shouldn't be the norm, they should be rare (and more valuable than now). Defending against a fleet of inties is easy in the system you live in, shouldn't in the systems you don't. You can keep BS with smartbombs on chokes; inties are easily killed by other inties (and many other ships), etc. In general i just can't see the problem in having a really unstable sov system (but sov has to be valuable). With no protection, "frontier" systems would be mostly freeports.
- SOV value. SOV value must be dramatically increased in an scenario where SOV is rapidly changing hands. a)SOV holder ratters should have some bounty increase (CONCORD LP or something), system sec-status (neg sec) should change reflecting activity and reward more activity (maybe in spawn frequency/quality) but not directly trough resource value. b) or, system quality should directly increase bounty on said system, making it more valuable for inhabitants, and more tempting to other entities to raid or just "ninja" kill. POSes (moon mining) needs to go away when SOV is lost.
- Supercaps. I dont like supercaps, but they exist. They need new roles. I propose a strong long range (smaller than grid) warp disruption field wich cannot be avoided
Greetings.
Not completely unrelated, link boosters off grid needs to go... |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6561
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 02:35:03 -
[3299] - Quote
Nou Mene wrote:- Supercaps. I dont like supercaps, but they exist. They need new roles. If they simply have no relevant roles, then it's as if they don't exist...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 02:37:06 -
[3300] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:SNIP
LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.
That would be dear leaders job to motivate us. And that's 13,145 characters to cover all of offense. And we can be motivated to do perform at that level, we did after all ground down Fountain in bombers for example. Those he ignore history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Fountain had an endgame, a light at the end of the tunnel. That will no longer be the case, you'll have to constantly beat down people who contest your ownership of the whole of nullsec, assuming you actually manage to capture as much space as your alliance seems to think it can.
Who said anything about capturing and holding systems? I don't want some toilet hovel -0.01 system at the arse end of Omist. If I can ruin someone's day by reinforcing it and spawning whackamole nodes... I will. Maybe I will come back and capture it, maybe I won't. Point being: are you having fun restoring your system to full control?
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 02:39:43 -
[3301] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Fountain had an endgame, a light at the end of the tunnel. That will no longer be the case, you'll have to constantly beat down people who contest your ownership of the whole of nullsec, assuming you actually manage to capture as much space as your alliance seems to think it can. Who's planning to capture anything? Seriously, we're a bunch of retardly masochistic idiots who'll beat our heads against a wall for months on the promise of 'eventually, it'll feel good when we stop!' and 'this hurts everyone else more'. We're not going to do this to take space. We're going to do this to screw other people. We probably won't even give much of a damn if it leaves all of Null a smoking crater. Before this actually goes live, all of our personal assets will be in safe lowsec or NPC null stations just like S2N's pastebin shows them planning. Our moon operations will still take just as much effort for people to hurt - and we'll still be able to respond w/fleets just like we do now - all with the added benefit of doing all our ratting in other peoples' space while we take it away from them just to watch it burn. Really, what's the downside to this for us? We don't have sov bills? This isn't going to do what CCP wants. It's not going to drive fights, it's going to produce a whole lot of griefing. And it's not going to stop until we get tired of it - and if you think we'll get tired of it any time soon, MiniLuv's been active how many years? Goons have been scamming people for how many years? As the scorpion said to the frog: it's our nature. Don't let us do this.
This post is poetry.
It is such a pity it's pithy words will be wasted on so many.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1058
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 02:43:21 -
[3302] - Quote
Just to point out:
Again, yes, the CFC will reinforce everything in sight if given the chance. The reason for this is that there is no reason, **** you. As it stands, this system will give them the chance.
Accept that as a baseline.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 02:47:56 -
[3303] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Arrendis wrote:Trolling people with this won't require interceptors. T3s are enough - and we'll use them. Well at least the broken record piping out of the propoganda machine has skipped onto a new track. So we're now onto trolled up T3s....let me guess...you'll threaten to do this with absolutely anything that can't be bubbled to try and change the mechanic which makes all your desolate backyards vulnerable before we get a chance to see it? Not transparent at all. edit: Fozzie wrote:If anything gets out of control it's very easy for us to adjust it and we want to make sure that we're adjusting that to make good gameplay. The core goal is that to win an object with the Entosis link, the victory should go, as much as possible, to whoever has reasonable dominance of that location, whoever has military control, in real terms over the area around that spot and if the gameplay devolves into people orbitting at 250km then that would break that goal and we would make sure that doesn't happen.
There's a lot of things we can do with that; we can do anything from giving penalties or bonuses to any type of ship, we can give anything like a speed limit on the module itself, (so that) you can't go over a certain speed whilst it's running, we could put fitting requirements on, cap requirements on, mass increases. We have all of those options and the goal is to use as light of a touch as possible but to use as strong of a touch as we need, to go with the minimum amount of interference on what people can fit and fly.
If you can win the grid with a whole bunch of interceptors by actually fighting the guy with your interceptors then you should be able to win the site, but if you can't, then as much as possible it should go to the guy that wins.
You keep beating the drum Eli, but you ignore two realities: first Malcannis law "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of GÇÿnew playersGÇÖ, that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players." If it helps new bros, sweet we have hordes of them, older players can still use it, we have hordes of them and their alts.
Secondly, any MMO mechanic can be 'min/maxed' and we will find that optimum point and abuse this to death.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2582
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 03:02:07 -
[3304] - Quote
A few side thoughts
The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them?
A few years ago when FW came out people called it a warmup for getting into null, null lite. Looks like they were wrong and null was FW lite and just warming up to now.
A friend in the game sent me an answer to my question of why do people do sov in null. He is a director in a fair sized null organization.
I will not name him or her since I failed to ask permission but this is what I got, summarized
Quote:Resources: Null has the best ore access, slightly better ice ratting loot, officer and faction modules. and moons. Isk: Null has the most efficient ratting opportunities, and player localized player markets. Safety: stations secure assets, allow for unlimited storage. Power: SOV lets you put your name on the map to show your strength by how many systems you control. In conclusion, pilots want SOV to have a home, plant a flag, and gather resources/wealth.
I think that did a decent job of summing it up. Do you have anything to add/debate?
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
721
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 03:02:45 -
[3305] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Just to point out:
Again, yes, the CFC will reinforce everything in sight if given the chance. The reason for this is that there is no reason, **** you. As it stands, this system will give them the chance.
Accept that as a baseline.
They pulled this same **** in the thread when Siphons came out. Didn't happen then, and it doesn't worry me now.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1133
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 03:19:26 -
[3306] - Quote
I love the whole "but the CFC will break it".
The CFC can currently break it if they want to. Nothing's currently stopping them.
PL, BL, N3... If they seriously wanted or cared to break people, they can.
The effort isn't worth it, because troll as they may, the fight will be elsewhere and they cannot maintain control of whatever they reinforce.
Let's say day 1, CFC reinforces everything in null. What happens day 2? As much as people like to say "we will camp you in and break you", nobody really enjoys it.
I wouldn't worry. Shrink and defend your space. Send people to more forward systems to act like a firewall (CFC tried to do that with Brave Newbies).
Yaay!!!!
|
MajorScrewup
Thundercats The Initiative.
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 03:20:03 -
[3307] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:A few side thoughts The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them? A few years ago when FW came out people called it a warmup for getting into null, null lite. Looks like they were wrong and null was FW lite and just warming up to now. A friend in the game sent me an answer to my question of why do people do sov in null. He is a director in a fair sized null organization. I will not name him or her since I failed to ask permission but this is what I got, summarized Quote:Resources: Null has the best ore access, slightly better ice ratting loot, officer and faction modules. and moons. Isk: Null has the most efficient ratting opportunities, and player localized player markets. Safety: stations secure assets, allow for unlimited storage. Power: SOV lets you put your name on the map to show your strength by how many systems you control. In conclusion, pilots want SOV to have a home, plant a flag, and gather resources/wealth.
I think that did a decent job of summing it up. Do you have anything to add/debate? m
I've lived in null space for the majority of my EvE playing time. I don't know if any of those statements are true or not, as they don't interest me that much. Their simply activities that can be done there, but aren't done enough for my liking as the risk vs reward / time vs enjoyment doesn't seem to be worth it.
I live in null space for the potential of PvP, whether its small fights or large fights. Flying through empty regions is soul destroying. There is a lot more activity in systems in hi-sec and I'd like that in null sec too, so that there are more opportunities for the fun part of EvE (to me) and the point of the wild frontiers of null sec space. Fighting others players.
Seeing he didn't add PvP on that list worries me.... |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6561
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 03:32:13 -
[3308] - Quote
MajorScrewup wrote:I live in null space for the potential of PvP, whether its small fights or large fights. Flying through empty regions is soul destroying. There is a lot more activity in systems in hi-sec Highsec it is!!
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1059
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 03:36:02 -
[3309] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:Just to point out:
Again, yes, the CFC will reinforce everything in sight if given the chance. The reason for this is that there is no reason, **** you. As it stands, this system will give them the chance.
Accept that as a baseline. They pulled this same **** in the thread when Siphons came out. Didn't happen then, and it doesn't worry me now.
I wasn't around for the introduction of Siphons. As it stands, the "burn SOV" potential in this proposed system seems more entertaining and more instantly gratifying than siphons do. Sucking up everyone's stuff might be fun, but shutting everything down would be a blast.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Kumar WhiteCastle
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 03:39:15 -
[3310] - Quote
Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread. |
|
Mellianah
Aideron Robotics
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 03:44:33 -
[3311] - Quote
Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread. He's known for no such thing... Where on earth did you get that idea...? |
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1059
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 03:46:34 -
[3312] - Quote
Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread.
So far as I've seen, the CSM is supportive of the proposed system. I haven't seen a member speak ill of it.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6561
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 03:55:33 -
[3313] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread. So far as I've seen, the CSM is supportive of the proposed system. I haven't seen a member speak ill of it. Fatigue !! 12 hours, never forget :)
It also shook up nullsec good, and ended our 0.0 dream
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1061
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 04:08:56 -
[3314] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread. So far as I've seen, the CSM is supportive of the proposed system. I haven't seen a member speak ill of it. Fatigue !! 12 hours, never forget :) It also shook up nullsec good, and ended our 0.0 dream
Unlike the jump fatigue thing, none of them are claiming that they found out when we all did. All the reactions I've seen have said that they had about a week to review the actual blog that was released, and about a month of hard discussion before that.
I look forward to the Swarm of Ceptors that resets all of Sov space.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1063
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 04:15:57 -
[3315] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:A few side thoughts The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them? A few years ago when FW came out people called it a warmup for getting into null, null lite. Looks like they were wrong and null was FW lite and just warming up to now. A friend in the game sent me an answer to my question of why do people do sov in null. He is a director in a fair sized null organization. I will not name him or her since I failed to ask permission but this is what I got, summarized Quote:Resources: Null has the best ore access, slightly better ice ratting loot, officer and faction modules. and moons. Isk: Null has the most efficient ratting opportunities, and player localized player markets. Safety: stations secure assets, allow for unlimited storage. Power: SOV lets you put your name on the map to show your strength by how many systems you control. In conclusion, pilots want SOV to have a home, plant a flag, and gather resources/wealth.
I think that did a decent job of summing it up. Do you have anything to add/debate? m High Class worm holes
- Are a better ISK faucet. - Will have more stability - Will be less hassle.
NPC Null will be less hassle as a base and then capture around there.
The positives of SOV Null will still be there but the negatives of this new system will out weigh them by a long shot with other options around.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6561
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 04:33:56 -
[3316] - Quote
We can all have a 0.0 nightmare together.
Let's all sleep together in the cold harsh space.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1063
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 04:38:34 -
[3317] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Fountain had an endgame, a light at the end of the tunnel. That will no longer be the case, you'll have to constantly beat down people who contest your ownership of the whole of nullsec, assuming you actually manage to capture as much space as your alliance seems to think it can. Who's planning to capture anything? Seriously, we're a bunch of retardly masochistic idiots who'll beat our heads against a wall for months on the promise of 'eventually, it'll feel good when we stop!' and 'this hurts everyone else more'. We're not going to do this to take space. We're going to do this to screw other people. We probably won't even give much of a damn if it leaves all of Null a smoking crater. Before this actually goes live, all of our personal assets will be in safe lowsec or NPC null stations just like S2N's pastebin shows them planning. Our moon operations will still take just as much effort for people to hurt - and we'll still be able to respond w/fleets just like we do now - all with the added benefit of doing all our ratting in other peoples' space while we take it away from them just to watch it burn. Really, what's the downside to this for us? We don't have sov bills? This isn't going to do what CCP wants. It's not going to drive fights, it's going to produce a whole lot of griefing. And it's not going to stop until we get tired of it - and if you think we'll get tired of it any time soon, MiniLuv's been active how many years? Goons have been scamming people for how many years? As the scorpion said to the frog: it's our nature. Don't let us do this. For emphasis. Making SOV more accessible to smaller groups makes it way better for large ones to grief.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1063
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 04:41:16 -
[3318] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread. So far as I've seen, the CSM is supportive of the proposed system. I haven't seen a member speak ill of it. http://evenews24.com/2015/03/06/submission-corebloodbrothers-visualises-his-ideal-nullsec-concept/
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6561
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 04:53:32 -
[3319] - Quote
Anyway it's fine. You're immine to sovtrolling or whatever the term is if you don't plan on having any. Like massadeath of moa.
Well with fatigue "sov is on the table for moa" but I think with sovlasers it will not be worthwhile anyway. Prepare to see nullsec owned by "Unclaimed"
(Not Unclaimed. the alliance)
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 05:24:21 -
[3320] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:A few side thoughts The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them? A few years ago when FW came out people called it a warmup for getting into null, null lite. Looks like they were wrong and null was FW lite and just warming up to now. A friend in the game sent me an answer to my question of why do people do sov in null. He is a director in a fair sized null organization. I will not name him or her since I failed to ask permission but this is what I got, summarized Quote:Resources: Null has the best ore access, slightly better ice ratting loot, officer and faction modules. and moons. Isk: Null has the most efficient ratting opportunities, and player localized player markets. Safety: stations secure assets, allow for unlimited storage. Power: SOV lets you put your name on the map to show your strength by how many systems you control. In conclusion, pilots want SOV to have a home, plant a flag, and gather resources/wealth.
I think that did a decent job of summing it up. Do you have anything to add/debate? m
That's a renter? Sound more like a renter than a person from a powerfull bloc. |
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
293
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 05:31:48 -
[3321] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:A few side thoughts
The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them?
Yes, I do. That's why I'm saying that there need to be limits to how bad we can be, beyond the ones we ourselves won't set.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 05:38:20 -
[3322] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:Kinis Deren wrote:
Sorry Mike, but no to Greygal's idea, if I'm reading her suggestion correctly for your post.
The core idea behind Sov 3.0 is that if a system is unused and/or undefended it should be easy for anyone to take - there should be no "remote" defence or reduction of vulnerability for systems that don't enjoy a degree of occupation.
look large alliances are getting around this by renting every system, therefore occupancy is always there. This is the problem. That is an attitude problem, not game mechanics one. Or well - currently it's partly game mechanics one as well because of the HP wall and needing supercapital blob to manhandle sov structures in effective way. But if the new system is implemented as presented that mechanics problem will go away as far as hp wall goes.
Other aspects of renting remain and in my opinion there not much point of trying particularly hard to address it with game mechanics changes. Because in a sense everyone in null is a "renter" with only difference being in what currency are you paying. Some pay in blood others in isk.
If you live for example, in Esoteria or even worse in deep dronelands it would take significantly more effort to be intependent than to be a blue with the logistics chain leading to empire. Especially now after the jump changes. So some people just cough up the isk for getting it "easy". From top of my head I cant think of any game mechanics changes that would address that issue without dumbing down EVE and even then you would find someone willing to pay. Just because the other guy "looks scary, man". Attitude problem.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 05:46:59 -
[3323] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Suggestion: If you decide not to allow a vulnerability timezone on a per constellation basis, I'd like to suggest the possibility of letting alliances pick a vulnerability timezone of more than four hours.
Why? The larger their vulnerability window, the better a new multiplier would be. This multiplier would [b]multiply the occupation defensive bonuses.
Example: 4h vulnerability per day = x1 multiplier 8h = x2 16h = x4
With any number of hours possible, and a multiplier proportionally changing.
The multiplier does not multiply the time it takes for a capture in itself, it multiplies to occupancy bonus. Meaning that if you're not using your space, you're not getting much additional time.
That's effectively a tradeoff of invulnerability time against added reaction time. It leaves small alliances the possibility to only be vulnerable for 4 hours, they have to react quickly to agressions, but again, they own a small space.
Larger alliances have more time to formup and defend their space, while at the same time exposing themselves way way more. That is pretty good idea actually in my opinion.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2586
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 05:53:57 -
[3324] - Quote
Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread.
I don't hate null, I just am not cut out to take orders from other people for fun. I also do poorly at yoga.
I am the one, here, engaging you. I am taking notes and asking the devs questions based on what you ask, here. Did that last night on Eve Down Under. But if you would rather I stepped aside to make room for other CSM to talk to you.
/me steps to one side
oh, look
yeah
I represent players of the game. ALL the game and anybody who thinks the upcoming sov changes will only have an effect on null is a class A fool. So I am here, not trolling, not joking around, doing what I said I would do for one more week.
If I wasn't the person you voted for it does not matter. I am still here.
and as I said before . . . I am already talking with NPSI folks about roams once this goes live. I don't like to LIVE in null. Doesn't mean I don't drop in for a visit now and again.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1817
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 06:01:14 -
[3325] - Quote
I have been looking at the timezones. Now, I know that EVE is not only played in these countries but the main timezones of relevance would probably be:
UTC for Europe Moscow +3 Australia +11 PST -8 (USA west) EST -5 (USA east)
For prime times, the 24 hour distribution looks something like:
UTC RUS AU PST EST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 +3 +11 -8 -5
I honestly donGÇÖt think 4 hours is adequate. You can see a couple of large zones around AU for a start, and even Europe and USA are too far apart.
What about a system whereby the prime time concept is still active but this is a peak time, rather than cut-off? Perhaps according to GreygalGÇÖs suggestion of the extent of this window being defined by sov indexes.
Or what about having it fade in and out, with a sliding percentage of structures being available for an hour or two either side of prime time?
I am concerned about the AU timezone. I think AU players will become second class citizens in null. And yet I agree that sov shouldn't require a 24h defence. Perhaps a graduated approach could work.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30784
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 06:01:50 -
[3326] - Quote
Ooh your forum skills are exquisite.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 06:02:29 -
[3327] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Dark Spite wrote: This would also mean there are actually 40K PLAYERS in CFC, and the answer is that there isnt. I would like to see all players multiboxing all their alts for both these things. It would be killmail farming heaven for everyone else, unless they all have 4-10 monitors each.
What? Multi boxing can be done on 1 screen with various programs.
In addition I would have to point out that nowadays screens are cheap. Be it then using a single 4k screen (8 megapixels, eve minimum resolution is 0.79 megapixels at 1024x768 so max 10 client without overlapping) or multiple 1080p screens (ok for 2 clients with minimal overalp at 1024x1080 resolution or 1080x960 if in portrait).
With minimum settings EVE is very conservative with resources. A 6 year old half decent PC can run 10 clients without major issues with main limitation being the GFX memory (you want about 250 MB per client) (AMD 1050, 16 GB RAM, AMD 7870 2 GB GFX card). If running more than 2-3 clients I would strongly suggest putting EVE on a SSD - it seems to help with session change times.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 06:06:32 -
[3328] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: Fights will still escalate in the new system, even without mountains of EHP to grind though.
I suspect so, I merely wonder now that the paradigm is shifting to **** jousting in small disposable ships (like FW), whether or not people will commit expensive, vulnerable assets if they can get the job done without it.
Ofcource they will. If you have, say, 20 dudes there is a difference if you are goofing around with shiny ships or throwaway ships. And that new system rewards smaller combat groups so the individual pilot skill and quality of the setup will matter more.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1818
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 06:11:18 -
[3329] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Ooh your forum skills are exquisite. :) I found a new button.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30785
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 06:12:15 -
[3330] - Quote
I disagreed with the Aussies who framed their questions about TZ isolation so negatively. True, there's the awkwardness of being outside every other TZ, but there's also the benefit of being outside every other TZ.
They're also geographically offset from the rest of the world, playing a game that has worldwide participation. Entosis sov is attempting to be fair to everyone, so the offset will be there unless some concessions are made just for Aussies.
The Aussies' questions in the EVE Down Under interview were defeatist, meaning they focused on what they would lose, rather than what they'd gain. Another thing that makes me question their logic was the reaction to Fozzie's mention of why AFK cloaky is not a problem in wormholes. He was only implying that local is double-edged, but it seemed at least a couple of those in attendance jumped to the conclusion that local is going away.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1818
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 06:26:44 -
[3331] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I disagreed with the Aussies who framed their questions about TZ isolation so negatively. True, there's the awkwardness of being outside every other TZ, but there's also the benefit of being outside every other TZ.
They're also geographically offset from the rest of the world, playing a game that has worldwide participation. Entosis sov is attempting to be fair to everyone, so the offset will be there unless some concessions are made just for Aussies.
The Aussies' questions in the EVE Down Under interview were defeatist, meaning they focused on what they would lose, rather than what they'd gain. Another thing that makes me question their logic was the reaction to Fozzie's mention of why AFK cloaky is not a problem in wormholes. He was only implying that local is double-edged, but it seemed at least a couple of those in attendance jumped to the conclusion that local is going away. I doubt local will go away. Probably some sort of delay or, more likely, a local cloak.
I also broadly agree with your comments on the timezone but I think there could be a middle ground where AU is included but not necessarily at full scale. This would help prevent defensive AU prime timing while also help accessibility.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1818
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 06:42:48 -
[3332] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:But if you would rather I stepped aside to make room for other CSM to talk to you.
/me steps to one side
oh, look
yeah
Hehe, they certainly are all conspicuous by their absence. Shameful.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6561
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 07:13:35 -
[3333] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I disagreed with the Aussies who framed their questions about TZ isolation so negatively. True, there's the awkwardness of being outside every other TZ, but there's also the benefit of being outside every other TZ.
They're also geographically offset from the rest of the world, playing a game that has worldwide participation. Entosis sov is attempting to be fair to everyone, so the offset will be there unless some concessions are made just for Aussies.
The Aussies' questions in the EVE Down Under interview were defeatist, meaning they focused on what they would lose, rather than what they'd gain. Another thing that makes me question their logic was the reaction to Fozzie's mention of why AFK cloaky is not a problem in wormholes. He was only implying that local is double-edged, but it seemed at least a couple of those in attendance jumped to the conclusion that local is going away. So we should look for a front where we REALLY don't want to fight, and then
give our AUTZ guys ratting rights there?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30786
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 07:18:13 -
[3334] - Quote
I don't know what you mean, exactly.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6563
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 07:26:08 -
[3335] - Quote
Well actually it wouldn't work unless they formed into an alliance of their own to hold the sov and set the timers so *sigh*
CFCAUTZAlliance just doesn't have the right ring to it
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
187
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 07:26:38 -
[3336] - Quote
MajorScrewup wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:A few side thoughts The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them? A few years ago when FW came out people called it a warmup for getting into null, null lite. Looks like they were wrong and null was FW lite and just warming up to now. A friend in the game sent me an answer to my question of why do people do sov in null. He is a director in a fair sized null organization. I will not name him or her since I failed to ask permission but this is what I got, summarized Quote:Resources: Null has the best ore access, slightly better ice ratting loot, officer and faction modules. and moons. Isk: Null has the most efficient ratting opportunities, and player localized player markets. Safety: stations secure assets, allow for unlimited storage. Power: SOV lets you put your name on the map to show your strength by how many systems you control. In conclusion, pilots want SOV to have a home, plant a flag, and gather resources/wealth.
I think that did a decent job of summing it up. Do you have anything to add/debate? m I've lived in null space for the majority of my EvE playing time. I don't know if any of those statements are true or not, as they don't interest me that much. Their simply activities that can be done there, but aren't done enough for my liking as the risk vs reward / time vs enjoyment doesn't seem to be worth it. I live in null space for the potential of PvP, whether its small fights or large fights. Flying through empty regions is soul destroying. There is a lot more activity in systems in hi-sec and I'd like that in null sec too, so that there are more opportunities for the fun part of EvE (to me) and the point of the wild frontiers of null sec space. Fighting others players. Seeing he didn't add PvP on that list worries me....
Seeing as all of that REQUIRES PvP.....im not surprised by your lackluster attitude....PvP? EvE is PvP. |
MajorScrewup
Thundercats The Initiative.
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 07:27:35 -
[3337] - Quote
Maybe some smart alliance should start grabbing every PvP centric Aussie corp out there ready for June and set their prime time to Oceanic to protect their space forever.
This will ensure their EU/ US members the freedom to run havoc on all the map while knowing their space is untouchable except for other alliances alarming clocking for months.
The system obviously will work, i remove all complaints I have had. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30787
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 07:37:13 -
[3338] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Well actually it wouldn't work unless they formed into an alliance of their own to hold the sov and set the timers so *sigh*
CFCAUTZAlliance just doesn't have the right ring to it Ah, ok I see what you mean. I still think everyone has a role, and some of us are in a better position to do certain things than others. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone when it comes to ratting income or playing for free (or playing with an ISK motive), because I don't. I pay irl money for subs, scramble for stratop pings with my Ishtars, which are the only ships I have my characters fit with, aside from an unfit, unrigged Thanatos to haul those Ishtars around while I scout.
Maybe it's a veteran thing. I'm here for the gangbangs and ISK has nothing to do with it.
There's also the assumption that every TZ behaves the same way by time of day, which I flat out disagree with. I stay up at all hours of the day, and it's not uncommon for me to be awake at downtime. I'm in Los Angeles, and EU is 8h ahead of me, but I still find myself playing in EU prime time. By time of day, AU is six hours behind me. Sure, there's a calendar date difference, but 11:30 PM for me (right now) is 6:30 PM in Sydney. Everyone has to extend themselves sometimes.
The other assumption is that it's healthy for a group to be exclusively one TZ. It helps to have friends. We have to help each other out.
I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but lastly, if I was offset from everyone in the world (If that is true, I mean), then wouldn't it be easier to rat? I don't know. I don't rat and I'm normally damn near broke and I don't care.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6564
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 07:52:12 -
[3339] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Well actually it wouldn't work unless they formed into an alliance of their own to hold the sov and set the timers so *sigh*
CFCAUTZAlliance just doesn't have the right ring to it Ah, ok I see what you mean. I still think everyone has a role, and some of us are in a better position to do certain things than others. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone when it comes to ratting income or playing for free (or playing with an ISK motive), because I don't. I pay irl money for subs, scramble for stratop pings with my Ishtars, which are the only ships I have my characters fit with, aside from an unfit, unrigged Thanatos to haul those Ishtars around while I scout. Maybe it's a veteran thing. I'm here for the gangbangs and ISK has nothing to do with it. There's also the assumption that every TZ behaves the same way by time of day, which I flat out disagree with. I stay up at all hours of the day, and it's not uncommon for me to be awake at downtime. I'm in Los Angeles, and EU is 8h ahead of me, but I still find myself playing in EU prime time. By time of day, AU is five hours behind me. Sure, there's a calendar date difference, but 11:30 PM for me (right now) is 6:30 PM in Sydney. Everyone has to extend themselves sometimes. The other assumption is that it's healthy for a group to be exclusively one TZ. It helps to have friends. We have to help each other out. It's fine we can send interceptors here and there anyway. Besides it was a joke, CFCAUTZAlliance sounds lame.
Perhaps we can call it CFCAUTZAlliance.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30787
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 07:53:20 -
[3340] - Quote
As long as they can be assed to send one guy out in a ceptor to laze their **** back on, we're good right?
Help, I can't download EVE
|
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 09:29:56 -
[3341] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:Dark Spite wrote: This would also mean there are actually 40K PLAYERS in CFC, and the answer is that there isnt. I would like to see all players multiboxing all their alts for both these things. It would be killmail farming heaven for everyone else, unless they all have 4-10 monitors each.
What? Multi boxing can be done on 1 screen with various programs. In addition I would have to point out that nowadays screens are cheap. Be it then using a single 4k screen (8 megapixels, eve minimum resolution is 0.79 megapixels at 1024x768 so max 10 client without overlapping) or multiple 1080p screens (ok for 2 clients with minimal overalp at 1024x1080 resolution or 1080x960 if in portrait). With minimum settings EVE is very conservative with resources. A 6 year old half decent PC can run 10 clients without major issues with main limitation being the GFX memory (you want about 250 MB per client) (AMD 1050, 16 GB RAM, AMD 7870 2 GB GFX card). If running more than 2-3 clients I would strongly suggest putting EVE on a SSD - it seems to help with session change times.
I am one of those guys that have way too many accounts and 2 displays (used a laptop earlier for 3rd client open). Running multiple accounts isnt that easy really, and though it has seemed a lot of cfc players run ISBoxer thats not true for the majority of them.
My PC from 2011 runs all my clients nicely on low settings but player input wont be effective across much more than 2-3. Also, we are men who according to lore dont multitask well |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 09:43:32 -
[3342] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:
CFCAUTZAlliance just doesn't have the right ring to it
That one made me chuckle.
Happy birthday Fawlty! |
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 09:44:14 -
[3343] - Quote
Added install and upkeep cost to the value estimation of owning a null system to my previous thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5557889#post5557889
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
89
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 09:59:01 -
[3344] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Well actually it wouldn't work unless they formed into an alliance of their own to hold the sov and set the timers so *sigh*
CFCAUTZAlliance just doesn't have the right ring to it
It would propably be named The Gyrostabilizer II or The Inertia Stabilizer. Atleast that have been the trend with CFC making pet alliances. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
705
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 10:08:58 -
[3345] - Quote
I was wondering for some time how long people would take to realise just how important AU TZ players would become, I can play from 06:40 to 16:40 during the week if I want to without any interference, after 16:40 its subject to wife aggro and sleep, but I was expecting to have a lot of fun when this comes out, I was expecting to become rather valuable, this is why Mercs as a profession could take off.
For Mike in particular to speak to Dev's.
I know there is a AFK cloaking thread and if people want to see my views look at my BIO, but post there not here. But if CCP removes local they should also remove all that other free intel on the map and on Dotlan, if people think otherwise hypocrite is a word that comes to mind. If I am ratting in a system, why should that intel be available to people who can just click on a map, why should intel of people in system be freely available to people checking a map. This requires a radical change just as much as sov does, make space big again CCP, this will help in getting people into 0.0 and with a more local feeling to it.
I am looking forward to the sov changes, but there are some other changes needed too.
EDIT: PS Fawlty7's birthday is actually around this time, so happy birthday Fawlty7
Ella's Snack bar
|
Lif
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 10:10:58 -
[3346] - Quote
after greyscale left I thought game design would improve at ccp, how wrong I was.
this smells like it was a rush job with little actual thought and additions to a system which has been mostly stolen from factional warfare. its going be station ping pong all over again.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
352
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 10:48:01 -
[3347] - Quote
Blackfangg wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Blackfangg wrote:.... BlackFangg "Only a handful of these systems are going to be maxed out, many of them (due to a lot of bad truesec systems) are going to be fast grinds." " So let's say a gang decides to come with inties in your worst TZ - picking at your sov structures." "now let's count in the hostiles return with a ceptor gang or a WH group is trying to get some kills out of you - you're all spread out trying to cover as many nodes as possible." "So even with a more than serious attempt to actually take your sov, you need to spend most of your prime time to cover this. Every goddamn time.Plus you're putting a reasonable amount of ISKs at risk in stations that can be flipped (even faster now and with the risk of enemies playing station games and bubbling the hell out if it), multiple shiptypes that need to be stored etc." "Then I'd rather live in a WH and pick my own fights or drop an alt in FW in lowsec" "Numbers are still the primary source of power, grinding will be even more part of the 0.0 life - now we just exchanged HP grinding for mere time spent activating a high slot module. The primary reason for alliances to fold is burn out and low morale, especially when all you need to do is grind all day. I don't think it should be encouraging to do this, but rather promote smaller 0.0 entities that don't need backup of their partners" "So many decent proposals were made the past weeks, just incorporate them into this." Ok you seem very intelligent and that makes me happy, I wish people were reading this better and thinking more rationally like you, me, and the rare other few. But i have a few questions/thoughts on your opinion. #1: If a system is only high index from a "Fast Grind" and that alone, then it probably isnt lived in, and shouldn't be yours.(potentially didnt understand what you meant here) #2: Ok now im kinda wondering if you actually read it as well....They cant pick at your structure in your worst TZ....Only in the 4 hours you choose. And if you own 25 systems and live in them all, then you should be able to get 3-6 people in RLM Cerb/Tengu and Hyena/Lokis/Intys of your own online for atleast 4 hours, and if you dont have those that, then you dont own 25 systems. #3 If they have managed to reinforce 25 systems then you deserve to lose it, 40mins AFTER the warning that EVERYONE gets and no one has shown up? Then ya, shouldnt be yours. Remember: This should be during your 4 hours that you have the most people online. If you dont have enough people to cover the systems then you dont need them. #4: Ok if you live in null, and your alliance owns systems, you should have PLENTY of ships. I have my ships at my required staging system when on deployments of course, but I keep 10 of every fleet fit frig, 5 of every cruiser, 2 of each BC, and 2 of each BS in my HOME station (Plus atleast 4 of every T2/T3 I can fly, and ammo for everything). In case someday we get attacked en mass. I Literally could live off the stuff in my home station for, weeks if not months of fighting. And I have plenty of ores/mins/salvage to make more if I need them. So if you dont have enough ships...well...rat/mine more. Station flipping thing, at least now you actually have the chance to get stuff out of a lost station (Looking at you Solar and N3) And about the serious attempt. Of course you have to defend you space if someone wants it!!! THATS THE POINT. And if you cant get people to play during your MOST ACTIVE TIME then again, you should lose it. #5 Well then go, plenty of us left here that will kill your rats, but having an Alt in FW or a WH isnt a bad idea, I have one, its for when I get bored of the empire and just want to hunt lowsec/WHs. #6 But this isnt possible, if you have 100 people in your corp, and a alliance of 15000 decided they want your space, then its not gonna be yours anymore. They cant make it that way without ruining the game. Because if i couldn't bring a fleet of 1000 with a mix of Supers/Caps/BS/Cruisers/Frigates and beat your 100man alliance flying Tengus, then I'd leave this game because it would be pointless. Whats the point of having a corp at all if you can't have power/safety in numbers? If numbers were ever made to not matter, then EVE would become that themepark MMO everyone talks about. #7 This is agree with, I think there are things that could be changed, such as maybe a 100km T2 ELink or degrading Strat Index. But I don't think this is a bad first step towards a better EVE, without millions on HP between me and that R-64 over there. Stuffs gonna get crazy after the patch but I believe a year or two from now we will look back and be like "What was I so mad about" Go back and look at how people said splitting Destroyers/Battlecruisers and everything into Racial Destroyer/BC was going to ruin the game and make it too hard to fly things. Or when they nerfed speeds. Or even WH space (Ya a lot of people thought it was dumb, go read the old posts.) I think CCP really should look hard at player opinions, but also there are so many people to please in this game. Its impossible to make them all happy. -BlackFangg Wrote a descriptive response to this but decided to go with - Look at the sov map, start packing now as I'd hate to see your little stockpile of ships lost over a few days to the bubblecamps on the undock.
Schluffi Schluffelsen - Unfortunately CCP is again following popular gaming trends with the further introduction of "mini games", which work well in some games but really have no place in sov nul. The mini game aspect based on a 4 hours window is turning eve into a job, if you hold sov you don't get to run anoms or mine or go on a small roam because for 4 hours everyday you need to be ready to defend your sov. Sounds really exciting doesn't it? No downsides to committing 4 hours a day, 28 hours per week to play a game.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2723
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 10:48:35 -
[3348] - Quote
Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread.
Why shouldn't he ?If high-sec get's a change in mining , loot drop , awoxing , etc i see a crapload of nullsec guys post in it how they feel the change is good/bad. Yet when we are discussing a change in null-sec all of a sudden anyone from an npc corp or who lives in high-sec/wormhole/low-sec should 'shut up as they do not know what is good or bad for null-sec'.And yes he is a CSM member but your comment is also given a hundred times in this thread to any of the above mentioned players.
And yes i know a lot of null-sec guys also hang out in high-sec but it seems to be forgotten that a LOT of the people who currently reside in high-sec/low-sec/wormholes also have a decent amount of null-sec experience.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Artemis Ellery Sazas
Full Spectrum Inc Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 10:51:56 -
[3349] - Quote
While I admire smaller corps/alliances desire to own your own sov, you are very wrong about what will happen.
There is one part of this that outsiders do not seem to understand, holding a successful sov system is a A LOT of work! If you don't increase your military and industry levels, then install the proper upgrades your system will be basically worthless. When you do raise your m & i levels and install the upgrades, you will become a target. Getting those upgrades into system is a logistical nightmare at the best of times. Then once your system is all upgraded you will be blobbed or ransomed. If you don't pay, your ihub will be popped and you will have to start all over again. If a corp or alliance does not intend to upgrade their system, then why take it in the first place?
This system is seriously flawed in so many ways. I predict after a period of 3-6 months null sec will be emptier and worse off than ever. Sov will be too easy to take to make upgrading worthwhile , especially from the smaller guys, 500 members or less and most systems will be left empty. I bet behind closed doors it is already being planned to grief sov newbies back to where they came from.
You can make bold plans to hold sov, but in the end most do not understand the true power of the big coalitions.
Edit
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1448
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 11:06:44 -
[3350] - Quote
The new system is great, now nerf or remove jump freighters from the game and ******* nerf bombers so people can use BC and BS.
The Tears Must Flow
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
705
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 11:11:39 -
[3351] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:While I admire smaller corps/alliances desire to own your own sov, you are very wrong about what will happen.
There is one part of this that outsiders do not seem to understand, holding a successful sov system is a A LOT of work! If you don't increase your military and industry levels, then install the proper upgrades your system will be basically worthless. When you do raise your m & i levels and install the upgrades, you will become a target. Getting those upgrades into system is a logistical nightmare at the best of times. Then once your system is all upgraded you will be blobbed or ransomed. If you don't pay, your ihub will be popped and you will have to start all over again. If a corp or alliance does not intend to upgrade their system, then why take it in the first place?
This system is seriously flawed in so many ways. I predict after a period of 3-6 months null sec will be emptier and worse off than ever. Sov will be too easy to take to make upgrading worthwhile , especially from the smaller guys, 500 members or less and most systems will be left empty. I bet behind closed doors it is already being planned to grief sov newbies back to where they came from.
You can make bold plans to hold sov, but in the end most do not understand the true power of the big coalitions.
Edit
Here is an example of someone assuming that the people in small corps or alliances who welcome this have not been in 0.0.
I know all about IHUB's and IHUB upgrades, level 5 ones require a freighter, doh!!!
I have understood frm the start that the IHUB was the key point of weakness in terms of ISK, doh!
You fail to understand that our group can also grief back, we can now setup all over the place, we just need a few bodies to get the system and take it back if lost, we need a TCU and a large death star POS, that is nothing in terms of ISK to many of us, this is going to be so much fun and yet you think being rolled over by 1,000 Goons is going to bother me, hell no, I will grab that system back again just for the fun of it, so who is griefing who?
Ella's Snack bar
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2726
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 11:18:56 -
[3352] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:While I admire smaller corps/alliances desire to own your own sov, you are very wrong about what will happen.
There is one part of this that outsiders do not seem to understand, holding a successful sov system is a A LOT of work! If you don't increase your military and industry levels, then install the proper upgrades your system will be basically worthless. When you do raise your m & i levels and install the upgrades, you will become a target. Getting those upgrades into system is a logistical nightmare at the best of times. Then once your system is all upgraded you will be blobbed or ransomed. If you don't pay, your ihub will be popped and you will have to start all over again. If a corp or alliance does not intend to upgrade their system, then why take it in the first place?
This system is seriously flawed in so many ways. I predict after a period of 3-6 months null sec will be emptier and worse off than ever. Sov will be too easy to take to make upgrading worthwhile , especially from the smaller guys, 500 members or less and most systems will be left empty. I bet behind closed doors it is already being planned to grief sov newbies back to where they came from.
You can make bold plans to hold sov, but in the end most do not understand the true power of the big coalitions.
Edit
Every system CCP comes up with to promote 'the lill guy going to null sov' is seriously flawed from the start.Because we start out with a flawed base where you can have big coalitions to start with.Unless that is tackled i don't ever see it becoming a place for the 'small guy'.
In other words , it won't happen.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
352
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 11:22:51 -
[3353] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:While I admire smaller corps/alliances desire to own your own sov, you are very wrong about what will happen.
There is one part of this that outsiders do not seem to understand, holding a successful sov system is a A LOT of work! If you don't increase your military and industry levels, then install the proper upgrades your system will be basically worthless. When you do raise your m & i levels and install the upgrades, you will become a target. Getting those upgrades into system is a logistical nightmare at the best of times. Then once your system is all upgraded you will be blobbed or ransomed. If you don't pay, your ihub will be popped and you will have to start all over again. If a corp or alliance does not intend to upgrade their system, then why take it in the first place?
This system is seriously flawed in so many ways. I predict after a period of 3-6 months null sec will be emptier and worse off than ever. Sov will be too easy to take to make upgrading worthwhile , especially from the smaller guys, 500 members or less and most systems will be left empty. I bet behind closed doors it is already being planned to grief sov newbies back to where they came from.
You can make bold plans to hold sov, but in the end most do not understand the true power of the big coalitions.
Edit
Your right, sadly. Regardless of CCP grand plans and ideas, no unaligned small alliance is going to take and hold any sov worth having. Many will try and this is the basket CCP is throwing all the eggs in. When a small unaligned alliance takes sov, it will create content (for a few days here and there) for the bloks. There will be lots of kills over relatively short periods and CCP will produce metrics to show how successful the sov changes are. Next comes a round of nerfs "re-balancing" to draw player attention away from the mess (mini game) called sov.
My only real question here is; How long will it take CCP to realize and acknowledge the mistakes.
NB; 3 of my old friends plan on resubbing for a month when these changes hit - This looks like the best troll mechanic CCP has ever introduced (talking about Entosis) and we want in on it.
- - - - - - - - - - - Sleep 8 hours - work 8 hours - Eve 4 hours - that leaves you with 4 hours a day to have a life; be a parent, eat meals, go shopping and get anything else you need to do done. Eve is meant to be a game. A game is meant to be fun. Fun is meant to be leisure time. None of these is meant to be a four hour a day, seven day a week commitment.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2726
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 11:36:50 -
[3354] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:While I admire smaller corps/alliances desire to own your own sov, you are very wrong about what will happen.
There is one part of this that outsiders do not seem to understand, holding a successful sov system is a A LOT of work! If you don't increase your military and industry levels, then install the proper upgrades your system will be basically worthless. When you do raise your m & i levels and install the upgrades, you will become a target. Getting those upgrades into system is a logistical nightmare at the best of times. Then once your system is all upgraded you will be blobbed or ransomed. If you don't pay, your ihub will be popped and you will have to start all over again. If a corp or alliance does not intend to upgrade their system, then why take it in the first place?
This system is seriously flawed in so many ways. I predict after a period of 3-6 months null sec will be emptier and worse off than ever. Sov will be too easy to take to make upgrading worthwhile , especially from the smaller guys, 500 members or less and most systems will be left empty. I bet behind closed doors it is already being planned to grief sov newbies back to where they came from.
You can make bold plans to hold sov, but in the end most do not understand the true power of the big coalitions.
Edit
Your right, sadly. Regardless of CCP grand plans and ideas, no unaligned small alliance is going to take and hold any sov worth having. Many will try and this is the basket CCP is throwing all the eggs in. When a small unaligned alliance takes sov, it will create content (for a few days here and there) for the bloks. There will be lots of kills over relatively short periods and CCP will produce metrics to show how successful the sov changes are. Next comes a round of nerfs "re-balancing" to draw player attention away from the mess (mini game) called sov. My only real question here is; How long will it take CCP to realize and acknowledge the mistakes. NB; 3 of my old friends plan on resubbing for a month when these changes hit - This looks like the best troll mechanic CCP has ever introduced (talking about Entosis) and we want in on it. - - - - - - - - - - - Sleep 8 hours - work 8 hours - Eve 4 hours - that leaves you with 4 hours a day to have a life; be a parent, eat meals, go shopping and get anything else you need to do done. Eve is meant to be a game. A game is meant to be fun. Fun is meant to be leisure time. None of these is meant to be a four hour a day, seven day a week commitment.
Only option i see to make the game really interesting again in null-sec roughly outlined , and ow boy is this gonna be flamed to hell and back , is to reduce the numbergame.
Reduce the amount able to have in a corp or Alliance BIG time. Maximum amount of blue standings 2. No neutral or red standings. Give the people with titans/motherships a reimbursement of their current value in isk back and the SP they stuck into it.Carriers and dreads revamped to a new role.
As i said above , a reall change it never gonna happen as a change along the lines of what i say here will never happen.Might as well just create a RvB null-sec landscape because if we go on as we did over the last 6 years then this is what is going to become the end result anyway.The players all want change , yet none in null-sec want to give in on the numbersgame , so really what point is there even trying for CCP.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
235
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 11:37:28 -
[3355] - Quote
I want to first cavet this by stating I do not know what the solution is, but I do feel the 'exam question' isn't being answered.
Firstly the context of 'Sovereignty' in Eve online:
"Sov v0.8" - Alliances existing as informal groupings, no stations, no Starbases
Players banded together to take advantage of the mineral wealth e.g the Curse and Stain alliances of old (Emergent play) No structures of any sort, made making a 'home' truly difficult' (Issue)
"Sov v0.9" - Conquerable stations appear, can be taken over by anyone
Players started to move goods/ships out to these stations, creating communities (Emergent play) 'Station ping pong'; small groups could flip the stations relatively easily, I remember doing this extensively myself in Period Basis in '04 (Issue)
"Sov v1.0" - Starbases are released, the new 'formalised' alliances appear
Simple system to build yourself a 'home', defence-in-depth by having a number of heavily armed Starbases, but also building up links between Starbases of different corporations to create reactions and industry e.g. ISS.... (Emergent play) 'Post-DT small Starbase spam'; because any Starbase could counted towards Sovereignty, players would spam rush small towers in T1 haulers after DT to flip a system (Issue)
"Sov v2.0" - Dominion-era Sov system
Got rid of the POS spam/grind, added ways to 'upgrade' your space to make a better home (Benefits) More complexity/lack of immersion with timers e.t.c, massive amounts of hitpoints to grind through (defensive SBU's, stations e.t.c) driving everyone to using large numbers of Supers and pushing the 'little guys' out (Issue)
"Sov v3.0" - ??
... ...
I've left these blank because I hope this is still a long way from being set in stone, but I can see already the same issues appearing; spamming, lack of immersive gameplay, and ugly TZ mechanics.
In my personal opinion, the simpler systems, for all their flaws, were more desirable (e.g. in "Sov 1.0' having small towers count towards sovereignty was clearly a major flaw, but otherwise you had to seriously 'invest' in an area of space to hold it...) which brings me onto a question:
Quote:Why, despite all the difficulties, did 'Alliances' (not the game mechanics ones) form? Why did players persist in moving out to 0.0 to eek out an existence in "their own space" with limited tools available?
This is quite a broad question, but one I'm not certain has been asked properly, let alone answered. It is fundamental, as any 'Sov' system is pointless unless it is fully understood.
FInal thoughts
Again purely my opinion; I believe 'Sovereignty' in Eve is too quick to achieve, a leaf could/should be taken out of the 'RL' book, by revisiting what sovereignty means - but to distill it down, it should probably be the same:
Quote:you can control your 'borders' and movement across your borders, but also must be recognised by others for it to have any meaning.... (e.g that's "Alliance X's" space because we'll get our heads kicked in by hundreds of dreads/supers if we drop in System X,Y,Z...)
... the highlighted point takes an awful long time (decades/centuries in reality) to achieve. What should it be in Eve? days? weeks? months? a year?
As I said at the start, not certain what the solution is, but the proposal on the table doesn't 'feel' to be 'it'
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
705
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 11:47:48 -
[3356] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Your right, sadly. Regardless of CCP grand plans and ideas, no unaligned small alliance is going to take and hold any sov worth having. Many will try and this is the basket CCP is throwing all the eggs in. When a small unaligned alliance takes sov, it will create content (for a few days here and there) for the bloks. There will be lots of kills over relatively short periods and CCP will produce metrics to show how successful the sov changes are. Next comes a round of nerfs "re-balancing" to draw player attention away from the mess (mini game) called sov.
My only real question here is; How long will it take CCP to realize and acknowledge the mistakes.
NB; 3 of my old friends plan on resubbing for a month when these changes hit - This looks like the best troll mechanic CCP has ever introduced (talking about Entosis) and we want in on it.
- - - - - - - - - - - Sleep 8 hours - work 8 hours - Eve 4 hours - that leaves you with 4 hours a day to have a life; be a parent, eat meals, go shopping and get anything else you need to do done. Eve is meant to be a game. A game is meant to be fun. Fun is meant to be leisure time. None of these is meant to be a four hour a day, seven day a week commitment.
Small alliances are not going to go for sov worth having, at least initially, to do so is ignoring reality and those that try will fail.
Taking poor sov systems however is fun and not expensive now and doable. So what if people come in and roll it over, the whole idea is to be able to compete and this allows people do so, even if it means that their efforts are in the end nothing more than grinding away and getting swatted, before this system you could not even do that.
The fun part which all you doomsayers ignore is the fun of just putting a TCU down and seeing what you can get, up the stakes a bit and add a deathstar, what else can we get to jump in, this will be fun, for example how many people can you get jump fatigued so they cannot get to a serious battle, seriously so many strategic options.
I even see big blocks supporting small guys next to their enemies space, I am sure taht will happen, honorable third party and all that...
And the people who could just go off and cause mayhem with no need to defend their own stuff are now going to be in the boat with the rest of us, of course they will defend against it better than the small guys, but who expects otherwise, only idiots.
Ella's Snack bar
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
447
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 11:53:49 -
[3357] - Quote
For those still concerned about the rigid use of 4-hour alliance prime times, please check out some proposed tweaks found here. I believe it would be in everyone's best interest if system vulnerability were linked to how often it were used, making it much easier to contest those that never see a soul.
Of course this is also another reason to fix the current Industrial Index. Something is clearly wrong when the EVE map looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/n84nWAH.png
Mining needs to make more of an impact on that index, and ideally there should be more metrics that factor in too. Commonly touted ideas include:
- Production jobs
- Moon mining or reacting starbases
- POCO usage
- Research
|
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die Retribution.
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 12:01:13 -
[3358] - Quote
I think SOV needs a complete overall rather than trying to hack and use whats there, thats my persona opinion, because it just feels rushed and far far too complicated.
The base question should be - Why would you want sov? What benefits does holding sov give me over living in nullsec npc instead?
At the moment the benefits are not much different. Infact many sov holding alliances dont even live in their homes, they live in NPC, why becuase they can farm the missions for high grade implants and the anoms etc. NPC region can actually be more profitable.
Most people want SOV not for the resources but for status, to get your name on the SOV map, to show people you matter, nothing more. Because you just dont see, especially the big alliances having mass mining ops etc. If they build anything its for a moon mining pos, or more poses for jump bridging, or another pos with a cyno jammer.
I see NOTHING of any alliance actually using any of the resources of the systems. The ones that they may do is the high sec ones that have index 5 for the anoms, which to be honest is a huge grindfest, i think i would rather farm belts with much higher bounties.
So CCP needs to make holding SOV worthwhile, but also make people be active rather than live in NPC or do nothing. Isnt nullsec space with a large alliances supposed to be a living breathing active world? Doesnt seem like that, now does it.
Some things we need to think about is, as mentioned why would any one want SOV, it needs to be profitable wthout having to constantly grinding but you have to work to get something.
Some recommendations to want SOV. I remember when i started 10 years ago, nullsec was the place to be the place you aimed for, the riches that you wanted. Now its just been nerfed to hell, being it back. I believe moon mining has caused some major issues. Make nullsec worth going to. Worth living in
Remove moon mining, and go to belt mining for these resources. Just like every other mineral. Reverse the index/sec status link, if you have invested in a ihub and all the upgrades then let everyone go back to having the same benefits. Allow multiple stations to be built, every normal system can have more than one, so why not. Make ABC ores profitable again. Bring back more high end DED sites, they used to be fun to do in groups. But instead of having them in certain systems make them random. Seems to me you have also nerfed faction/officer spawns to non existence. Why?
If you dont then we might as well just all move to NPC nullsec and change every sov region to npc.
Stop trying to nerf isk making into the ground, because the more money people have the more they invest, buy more ships, more modules etc which makes better for the economy and allows people to really build an active exciting universe. Feels like we have been in austerity for years now and there is no reason for it to be. If you live in nullsec and 'prepared to do some work' then why shouldnt you get the riches?
I moved out of nullsec sov, because there is simply no reason to be there any more.
People being allowed to rent and the mooning mining has made large alliances lazy and far far too easy to make isk, that needs to stop. I do like the thoughts about making taking sov easier and quicker, but you have to have a balance that people arent just going around being annoying and griefing just for the fun of it. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
235
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 12:01:57 -
[3359] - Quote
I hate to say this but, I suspect implementing a viable Sovereignty system isn't really going to be possible until Starbases are completely re-worked from the ground up.
(They were 'supposed' to be the small 'islands'/'colonies' that would make 0.0 living worthwhile)
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
846
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 12:28:33 -
[3360] - Quote
I see every effort is still being made to stop changes that punish those who don't live in space they 'own'
Good job.
The people with something to fear here are those who do not live locally. No one else. Size is not a factor in terms of letting 'little' guys in. They could be crushed today and can be crushed tomorrow. The difference is that if you're not living in and using your own space then it's easy to take - and rightly so.
Use it or lose it is the message here. |
|
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die Retribution.
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 12:36:51 -
[3361] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I see every effort is still being made to stop changes that punish those who don't live in space they 'own'
Good job.
The people with something to fear here are those who do not live locally. No one else. Size is not a factor in terms of letting 'little' guys in. They could be crushed today and can be crushed tomorrow. The difference is that if you're not living in and using your own space then it's easy to take - and rightly so.
Use it or lose it is the message here.
So what about alliances that are renting regions and regions, where every system is being rented, but effectively the alliance is still holding sov, albeit it in the sister rental alliance.
|
Saffear Stormrage
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Skeleton Crew.
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 12:38:17 -
[3362] - Quote
looking at the wide variety of comments, suggestions and good ideas, I feel more than ever that a lot more discussion is required. Still I am not behind the 4 hour window of vulnerability - I am not for any size window. One of the biggest strengths in EVE online is the diversity of players. onces you box in the time frame you make a bunch of little sandboxes, while some can adapt, for the most it will cause further granulation of the sandboxes until you have neat little packaged entities that have little or No interaction with each other. If that is what you wish - go for it, I for one will not be apart of it, I am certain there are others besides myself that love the wide open sandbox - mostly unrestricted by Time or location. Please find a solution for this before you make changes, - Other notes - I love small gang as much as the next pilot however having Sov solely based on small gang warfare will result in the same boring stalemate Faction warfare is in. TCU's being a name on a map only - so then why? Just sayin Saf- |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12038
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 12:58:23 -
[3363] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Use it or lose it is the message here.
And the problem with that is that most of it's not worth living in. As in, so bad you might as well be grinding missions in Egglenaert instead.
Instead of being given to the ubiquitous little guy, that sov is going to be used as a DMZ between the areas actually worth having.
If you want to force people to live in their space to defend it, fine.
Just make it worth living in in the first place. Or is that too much to ask?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:05:28 -
[3364] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Your right, sadly. Regardless of CCP grand plans and ideas, no unaligned small alliance is going to take and hold any sov worth having. Many will try and this is the basket CCP is throwing all the eggs in. When a small unaligned alliance takes sov, it will create content (for a few days here and there) for the bloks. There will be lots of kills over relatively short periods and CCP will produce metrics to show how successful the sov changes are. Next comes a round of nerfs "re-balancing" to draw player attention away from the mess (mini game) called sov.
My only real question here is; How long will it take CCP to realize and acknowledge the mistakes.
NB; 3 of my old friends plan on resubbing for a month when these changes hit - This looks like the best troll mechanic CCP has ever introduced (talking about Entosis) and we want in on it.
Small alliances are not going to go for sov worth having, at least initially, to do so is ignoring reality and those that try will fail. Taking poor sov systems however is fun and not expensive now and doable. So what if people come in and roll it over, the whole idea is to be able to compete and this allows people do so, even if it means that their efforts are in the end nothing more than grinding away and getting swatted, before this system you could not even do that. ..... EDIT: If people have not seen one theme on my posts about Sov, its to do it because I want to do it and I think I can have fun doing it, but my motive has nothing to do with ISK generation because I know it is not going to be worth it. CCP has to look at the value of low true sec systems. Yes I can make ISK out of them if I try but so much is loaded against you, I would for example run around in a PvP ship blapping belt rats just because I can, small ISK generation but why not while waiting to blap aGoon interceptor with a 20m or 80m module, but my past experience in this game is that people will just do everything they can to stop you operating there, so for me its plant your flag, have fun around the PVP generated from that.
This is exactly why the new sov system makes me want to invest time in taking SOV. Not because I think it will the glorious start of a new space empire, but because it will be fun to do so. When I was in alliance leadership of sov holding alliances it was a lot of work but also a lot of fun.
I don't care about shi**y metrics like isk/hour, if I did then I would probably run Sisters of Eve L4's out of Osmon like half the russians in EVE do(Russians seem to find the sweet spots so much better than EU/US players). Even -1.0 systems dont generate as good a ratio iskwise as those missions do. A lot of times you can get over 4000/lp ratio. But I hate running missions almost as much as I hate running anomalies.
Sov is fun because it poses some challenges to me and the players I fly with that which are not there when living in HS, LS or NPC Null. Also its a great way to have younger players get their legs kneedeep in pvp since pvp always comes to you. Not only in the form of sov attacks, but often also in the form of roaming gangs. I am guessing that roaming gangs will routinely have an entosis module on a ship to provoke a fight, but if they get the fight most of them wont use it. Maybe goons are different in this, and so be it.
The goon campaign in this thread is interesting to follow on many levels. First of they dont like the change and want to show a way for it to be used in griefing in order to change the mechanics before they are implemented on TQ. Secondly they tell everyone that they will do whatever it takes to ruin the game for those who dare to nibble at their vast areas of empty space. Third is that their players enjoy this and will have fun making others miserable. Its their isk/RL money which goes to pay for subscription and they have their right to play the game however they want.
Sov like this will enable me to have more nullsec fun without the f**cking structure shooting which POS Sov and Dominion SOV entailed. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:27:43 -
[3365] - Quote
I find the complaints about the 4h prime time window quite strange.
Since essentially we have it even now for sov structures, only the window is 6h wide, not 4, and can be set per structure, not per alliance, which makes defending vast unoccupied areas easier (what this update is aimed to get rid of).
But that is a technicality, since alliance is, well, a social construct. What's behind an alliance is a community, and an alliance is just a way to formalize the relationship. Not, strictly speaking, necessary. There are functioning examples of organized communities within EVE online not reliant on the organization opportunities provided by game mechanics (sans ingame chat channels and mailing lists). So splitting an alliance for shifting timer purposes does not take away from the community. Perhaps unfortunately, since big communities that try to alleviate internal conflicts (for some reason shooting blues is a crime, not a virtue) are pretty much the root of evil. |
Duffyman
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:32:17 -
[3366] - Quote
I have a question. Dev blog says build price of Sov lasers are 20 and 80m respectively. This leads me to assume that the Drifters will drop blueprints. So the real cost of the mods will be way higher than their build cost right? Does this influence the real worth of the mods or do you guys think that this bears little influence? Because Drifters are hard to kil... |
Silent Twilight
Red October.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:48:54 -
[3367] - Quote
To avoid swarming trollceptor attacks on SOV, but still give an option of a small agile capturing ship, perhaps there should be specialized cruiser and/or smaller hulls for Entosis Link, which would otherwise fit only only on larger classes. If this ship isn't good for 1 vs 1 combat, it would require some armed escort in inhabited and gatecamped hostile territory. And dedicated hull would also be a clear sign of a threat for SOV, preventing every single neut or red in a ceptor or Cynabal being perceived as a possible Entosis carrier. |
Mellianah
Aideron Robotics
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:52:03 -
[3368] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:I have a question. Dev blog says build price of Sov lasers are 20 and 80m respectively. This leads me to assume that the Drifters will drop blueprints. So the real cost of the mods will be way higher than their build cost right? Does this influence the real worth of the mods or do you guys think that this bears little influence? Because Drifters are hard to kil... I've been asking people the same question... *tumbleweeds* Also, will it be a straight build, or invention/chance based? How numerous exactly are Drifters anyway? Queue supply/demand... |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:53:23 -
[3369] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:I have a question. Dev blog says build price of Sov lasers are 20 and 80m respectively. This leads me to assume that the Drifters will drop blueprints. So the real cost of the mods will be way higher than their build cost right? Does this influence the real worth of the mods or do you guys think that this bears little influence? Because Drifters are hard to kil... 1. It's not that given that drifters will drop BPCs. Can't have that much a limiter on such a core mechanic as SOV. Probably they will have NPC-sold BPOs and built mainly from PI products to control damage that will be caused to the PI market by removal of SBUs. 2. Drifters are notoriously easy to kill. It's true that you'll have to lose a single ship while killing a drifter (unless you drop caps on them), but you are free to choose what ship to lose. A single trash-fit atron with a couple of webs is more than enough to kill the first layer of shield and trigger the doomsday, after which a drifter is easier than some dedspace overseer ships. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
858
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:53:32 -
[3370] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I see every effort is still being made to stop changes that punish those who don't live in space they 'own'
Good job.
The people with something to fear here are those who do not live locally. No one else. Size is not a factor in terms of letting 'little' guys in. They could be crushed today and can be crushed tomorrow. The difference is that if you're not living in and using your own space then it's easy to take - and rightly so.
Use it or lose it is the message here.
This is manifestly untrue. There are plenty of people in this thread who are concerned about these changes who do live in our space. People who have actually built a home in 0.0. People whose alliances are less than 500 people.
The only people in this thread consistently in favor of this proposal are those who live elsewhere: lowsec, highsec, WH's, NPC 0.0. People who just control valuable moons are largely unphased by these proposals.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
296
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 14:10:00 -
[3371] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:This is manifestly untrue. There are plenty of people in this thread who are concerned about these changes who do live in our space. People who have actually built a home in 0.0. People whose alliances are less than 500 people. I think people from both sides are underestimating the dedication that's going to be needed to RF everything AND THEN return to finish the job two days later - at least against people occupying their space.
But perhaps the 1:4 scaling isn't enough - make it 1:6, 1:8 in favour of the defender on these structures? How much is needed to make the troll attackers reconsider their lives? Ofc this then falls into the trap of allowing goons upto 60 or 80 minutes to form up the required blob they need to fight their own defence
edit: relevant link as to how goons fight without their blob |
Mellianah
Aideron Robotics
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 14:23:36 -
[3372] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Duffyman wrote:I have a question. Dev blog says build price of Sov lasers are 20 and 80m respectively. This leads me to assume that the Drifters will drop blueprints. So the real cost of the mods will be way higher than their build cost right? Does this influence the real worth of the mods or do you guys think that this bears little influence? Because Drifters are hard to kil... 1. It's not that given that drifters will drop BPCs. Can't have that much a limiter on such a core mechanic as SOV. Probably they will have NPC-sold BPOs and built mainly from PI products to control damage that will be caused to the PI market by removal of SBUs. 2. Drifters are notoriously easy to kill. It's true that you'll have to lose a single ship while killing a drifter (unless you drop caps on them), but you are free to choose what ship to lose. A single trash-fit atron with a couple of webs is more than enough to kill the first layer of shield and trigger the doomsday, after which a drifter is easier than some dedspace overseer ships. True enough. Most things are speculation right now... My reason for linking Entosis modules with dead Drifters, is speculation on the Antikythra Element which people are saying is salvageable from Drifter wrecks on Sisi. As for Drifters being easy to kill, I'm reasonably sure their AI will be tweaked some more before they're finished. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
848
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 14:51:39 -
[3373] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: Use it or lose it is the message here.
And the problem with that is that most of it's not worth living in. As in, so bad you might as well be grinding missions in Egglenaert instead. Instead of being given to the ubiquitous little guy, that sov is going to be used as a DMZ between the areas actually worth having. If you want to force people to live in their space to defend it, fine. Just make it worth living in in the first place. Or is that too much to ask?
Nope - but people need to adjust their expectations. It's ALREADY mostly worth it to live in, the problem is a wealth distribution one among grunts.
As I mentioned early in the thread but stopped the derail - there is a LOT more to "null income" than anoms and drops. PI, moon goo is HUGE income - there is no denying that. SRP programs are not cheap - but they are there.
To look at null income levels using bounties alone is to look at missions and ignore LPs. Disingenuous at best.
So as I said we might see a rebalance, but it might not be the one ANYONE expects.
The other thing that sits badly here is "the space is worthless, but no-one else can have it either" is...odd. A DMZ holds value - even if that is not liquid isk. Even more so now with phoebe and mid point requirements.
There's a WHOLE lot more to the null landscape than "line members find making isk hard". |
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
983
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 14:58:37 -
[3374] - Quote
Any time I see this much whining and butthurt and general antimony, I can't help but think that CCP is on to a good idea.
I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Shut up, Anslo. --everyone
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12038
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:00:50 -
[3375] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Nope - but people need to adjust their expectations. It's ALREADY mostly worth it to live in, the problem is a wealth distribution one among grunts.
Yeah, how dare people expect that the most dangerous space in the game would pay off better than L4 missions in highsec.
This is the part where people can tell that you're just here to troll, by the way.
Quote: As I mentioned early in the thread but stopped the derail - there is a LOT more to "null income" than anoms and drops. PI, moon goo is HUGE income - there is no denying that. SRP programs are not cheap - but they are there.
That's not personal level income, by any means.
Quote: The other thing that sits badly here is "the space is worthless, but no-one else can have it either" is...odd.
If you weren't being deliberately dishonest, it would make perfect sense.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:20:37 -
[3376] - Quote
xttz wrote:For those still concerned about the rigid use of 4-hour alliance prime times, please check out some proposed tweaks found here. I believe it would be in everyone's best interest if system vulnerability were linked to how often it were used, making it much easier to contest those that never see a soul. Of course this is also another reason to fix the current Industrial Index. Something is clearly wrong when the EVE map looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/n84nWAH.png Mining needs to make more of an impact on that index, and ideally there should be more metrics that factor in too. Commonly touted ideas include:
- Production jobs
- Moon mining or reacting starbases
- POCO usage
- Research
That'd be interesting. I like the concept behind the mechanic, although it would be better if the prime time wasn't on a daily basis in the first place.
If you had a vulnerability period (can we call it vulnerability period because prime time sounds terrible) every couple of days then it would give players a chance to play other aspects of the game and enjoy the fact that they have managed to keep their space safe for the next couple of days. I don't think that making it happen on a daily basis would be conducive for good gameplay. I see Eve a long term strategic game at its core, and so a longer period between engagements would be more fitting with what most players would expect from a game like this.
Also I think CCP need to look at active defence that rewards players further for operating in their own space and putting in some effort to actively defend. So on top of the variable mechanic above, you could also reduce the vulnerability period further by doing activities such as supplying your structures with fuel such as strontium, and carrying out maintenance with hull repairing logistic ships.
On top of this I'd like to see some anchorable structures such as guns and defences, they could be limited by the PG and CPU of the structure they are anchored at, and also would be expensive and slow to construct and anchor so that they aren't easily replaceable should attackers destroy them. Allowing players to base build in some form or another is a good aspect of any strategy game.
So my overall suggestion would be to implement the variable mechanic mentioned above, along with spreading the vulnerability period so that it occurs between another variable safe period of around 5 to 10 days. This will stop things getting to boring and predictable. On top of this make the vulnerability period quite a bit longer, for instance 12 hours at a minimum which could be reduced by a factor of 2 if you are actively defending and making use of occupancy bonuses as described above. |
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
446
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:21:24 -
[3377] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: Nope - but people need to adjust their expectations. It's ALREADY mostly worth it to live in, the problem is a wealth distribution one among grunts.
Yeah, how dare people expect that the most dangerous space in the game would pay off better than L4 missions in highsec. This is the part where people can tell that you're just here to troll, by the way.
My highlighting.
Dude, you are so utterly wrong. Here, let me enlighten you.
You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place? Please do try to stay on topic though. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
849
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:23:27 -
[3378] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: Nope - but people need to adjust their expectations. It's ALREADY mostly worth it to live in, the problem is a wealth distribution one among grunts.
Yeah, how dare people expect that the most dangerous space in the game would pay off better than L4 missions in highsec. This is the part where people can tell that you're just here to troll, by the way. Quote: As I mentioned early in the thread but stopped the derail - there is a LOT more to "null income" than anoms and drops. PI, moon goo is HUGE income - there is no denying that. SRP programs are not cheap - but they are there.
That's not personal level income, by any means. Quote: The other thing that sits badly here is "the space is worthless, but no-one else can have it either" is...odd.
If you weren't being deliberately dishonest, it would make perfect sense.
Calling me a troll because it dfoesn't suit your viewpoint doesnt make my points invalid.
The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. If that income is not making it down to line members - that is an issue to take up with your leadership.
Just because it is not convenient to "woe is me, ratting isnt good enough" doesn't make it untrue.
Yes, ratting alone doesn't meake eye watering income, but the other areas DO. I've not paid for a loss in a loooooong time. If you can't see how that is income of a different nature well I don't know what to tell you. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
708
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:24:07 -
[3379] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: Nope - but people need to adjust their expectations. It's ALREADY mostly worth it to live in, the problem is a wealth distribution one among grunts.
Yeah, how dare people expect that the most dangerous space in the game would pay off better than L4 missions in highsec. This is the part where people can tell that you're just here to troll, by the way.
People pick the best mission space like Osmon and blitzing it very efficiently and compare it to the worst ratting space in 0.0 which is low truesec and camped to hell and back.
We all agree that 0.0 at the grunt level needs improving, but level 4's in the main are not that good outside of certain select LP mission hubs. And I also disagree with safe, look at Inaya next to Osmon...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12038
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:26:32 -
[3380] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is.
But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread.
afkalt wrote:The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income.
No, that's not the point. You can scream "Grr Moons!" until you pass out, it means nothing. SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income.
Individual income should not be worse than highsec.
Period.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:30:38 -
[3381] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is. But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread. afkalt wrote:The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. No, that's not the point. You can scream "Grr Moons!" until you pass out, it means nothing. SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income. Individual income should not be worse than highsec. Period.
So getting ships back from an SRP program is not a profti for an individual? I mean, he doesn't have to pay for it. Granted it's no liquid isk in his pocket but an income none the less.
If you fail to see that then maybe CFC should stop the SRP program, see how ppl will respond to their loss of income. Wait this isn't an individual income so it shouldn't matter.
CFC High command can thank me later for this huge extra income I generated. ,0001 % will do.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
850
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:32:39 -
[3382] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is. But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread. afkalt wrote:The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. No, that's not the point. You can scream "Grr Moons!" until you pass out, it means nothing. SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income. Individual income should not be worse than highsec. Period.
"Individual" income is dictated BY THE LEADERSHIP and not CCP. If you have an income problem - speak to the directorate. CCP do not force to not share communal wealth, there is no mechanic enforcing this.
Point is, you need to accept that if null income is rebalanced, maybe it won't go the way you like. You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell how we all need to ignore the moon income, but CCP cannot and will not.
As I've said, I've no problem with a null rebalance - but people best be careful what they wish for. |
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
446
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:32:42 -
[3383] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:afkalt wrote:I see every effort is still being made to stop changes that punish those who don't live in space they 'own'
Good job.
The people with something to fear here are those who do not live locally. No one else. Size is not a factor in terms of letting 'little' guys in. They could be crushed today and can be crushed tomorrow. The difference is that if you're not living in and using your own space then it's easy to take - and rightly so.
Use it or lose it is the message here. So what about alliances that are renting regions and regions, where every system is being rented, but effectively the alliance is still holding sov, albeit it in the sister rental alliance.
Will the renter defend it though or QQ to the parent alliance that "somone is invading my space man, do something about it!". It seems N3 won't be there to help you from what I'm hearing and the CFC don't care about their pubbie pets.
Tbh, I can't wait to smack up some renter ships with my blasters
On the other hand, what's to stop a renter from revolting against their slumlord and taking the sov for themselves?
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
709
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:35:58 -
[3384] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is. But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread. afkalt wrote:The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. No, that's not the point. You can scream "Grr Moons!" until you pass out, it means nothing. SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income. Individual income should not be worse than highsec. Period. So getting ships back from an SRP program is not a profti for an individual? I mean, he doesn't have to pay for it. Granted it's no liquid isk in his pocket but an income none the less. If you fail to see that then maybe CFC should stop the SRP program, see how ppl will respond to their loss of income. Wait this isn't an individual income so it shouldn't matter. CFC High command can thank me later for this huge extra income I generated. ,0001 % will do.
This is the key aspect that so many people who cry about level 4's miss, to break into 0.0 means that you have to compete against SRP. In the Goons all they have to do is to earn the ISK to buy the ship at the start, once they have that they get it replaced if they lose it n combat, at one point people were getting ships replaced when they got caught ratting, that is how good the SRP was in some alliances.
And yet people go on and on about level 4's, most of us think the people doing this are trolling, however it is possible that they are so fixed on ISK per hour that they ignore the more strategic aspects of the game.
Please stop Kaarous!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
448
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:37:45 -
[3385] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is. But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread.
If you got out of your bonus room more often, stopped sucking CFC appendages and listened to what CCP Fozzie has said on recent podcasts then you'd know it isn't rumour mongering. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:46:07 -
[3386] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Please stop Kaarous! *chuckles* Never going to happen |
Josef Djugashvilis
2907
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:55:59 -
[3387] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Please stop Kaarous! *chuckles* Never going to happen
Whilst I undersatand the sentiment, I do not want Kararous to stop.
It never fails to amuse me that no matter what the source to the contrary, from CCP down, dear Kaarous can always find some metric to claim that hi-sec folk are spoilt rotten and that null-sec folk are on their uppers relatively speaking.
If null-sec corp bosses keep most of the dosh for themselves, why should anyone not affected care?
This is not a signature.
|
Syntax Nox
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 16:10:54 -
[3388] - Quote
Thought i would throw some ideas out
Keep sbu's, if you want to E-wand out side of prime time you have to sbu or just keep the sbu mechanic as is. As a sand box game it seems like any time zone should be able to invade at any time not just some one else's prime time. This would also limit the crying about E-trolls.
Battlecruiser or above can only fit E-wand, cruiser maybe also
You have to go through tcu before you can attack ihub. Lots of isk and time go into upgrading ihub it should be at least a little tough to destroy such a key piece of sov space infrastucture. This way there wont be a bunch of claimed systems with no infrastucture.
Just a few thing they may have been mentioned. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
147
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 16:19:18 -
[3389] - Quote
a Sliding scale would be good.
a no index no useage system has a 24 hour vulnerability timer.
Soverenty takes 3.5 hours per level
military index takes 0.5h per level Industry index takes 0.5h per level
so a maxed usage system would have a vulnerable timer of 1.5 hours per day a system that has a tcu only and no usage has between 24 hours and 6.5 hours vulnerability per day
so a level 5 ratting system at max sov with no miners will have 4 hours per day a lvl 2 mining system with lvl 2 sov will be vulnerable for 16 hours during a day
ive been trying to balance these figures for an hour and they still don't seem to balance very well. they probably need to be percentage baised.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
297
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 16:31:01 -
[3390] - Quote
I think some kind of sliding scale for vulnerability is definitely necessary...whether to base it purely on indices or make it more complex by also basing it on other factors:
number of sov systems number of players in an alliance truesec (higher truesec means it should be 'safer' and more easy to hold?)
Also potentially with fuzzy edges instead of hard limits - the defence multipliers get stronger the further you move away from the middle of primetime rather than having a hard cut off.
No idea on what the grand final equation might look like but something with those and other variables might be the key. |
|
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 16:36:27 -
[3391] - Quote
Yes, tie ALL industry activity to 'occupancy sov' - Invention, Research, Contracts, Manufacture - not just mining.
Reasons.
1. There are Station Taxes, System Index Costs, Contract Fees (isk sinks not set by players) and assets involved in stations used in systems that are not primary for ratting or mining.
2. Assets are moved in and out of these stations so 'no one undocks, no risk' is an invalid argument. The asset risk / reward ratio merits inclusion since a station flip and service denial is significant to the amount of resources held by industrial toons in the form of supplies & blueprints.
3. If you don't tie all industry activity to the Entosis resist factors then you are negating activity in a system design based on activity.
Small groups would be encouraged to upgrade and consolidate a system at a time strengthening defenses.
Large groups would still have to cover several systems due to their legacy of spreading out and prioritize system defenses or future station upgrades for consolidation.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
725
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 16:42:10 -
[3392] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: Nope - but people need to adjust their expectations. It's ALREADY mostly worth it to live in, the problem is a wealth distribution one among grunts.
Yeah, how dare people expect that the most dangerous space in the game would pay off better than L4 missions in highsec. This is the part where people can tell that you're just here to troll, by the way. People pick the best mission space like Osmon and blitzing it very efficiently and compare it to the worst ratting space in 0.0 which is low truesec and camped to hell and back. We all agree that 0.0 at the grunt level needs improving, but level 4's in the main are not that good outside of certain select LP mission hubs. And I also disagree with safe, look at Inaya next to Osmon...
You're comparing optimal Highsec to least-optimal nullsec. That's apples to oranges. Compare a -1.0 system to Osmon L4s and you'd have a fair comparison.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6565
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 16:43:28 -
[3393] - Quote
This is basically the best thread to troll cfc about how their 0.0 dream will end in a blaze of sov lasers
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
725
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 16:44:09 -
[3394] - Quote
Since we appear to have gotten over the trollceptor we can finally have a proper discussion.
Industry index does need to be more than mining, because industry involves more. I wouldn't include moon mining or reactions though, because those can be done really easily, just a medium Caldari to react Atmo Gases and Evaporite Deposits and you immediately easy industry index, all you have to do is fuel it.
Research, manufacturing, and PI would be good though.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
297
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 16:57:36 -
[3395] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Dracvlad wrote:People pick the best mission space like Osmon We all agree that 0.0 at the grunt level needs improving, but level 4's in the main are not that good outside of certain select LP mission hubs. And I also disagree with safe, look at Inaya next to Osmon... You're comparing optimal Highsec to least-optimal nullsec. That's apples to oranges. Compare a -1.0 system to Osmon L4s and you'd have a fair comparison. I hate to be that Pro Synergy salvage guy that knows what they're talking about - but - running in Osmon is actually less optimal than running SoE missions in Apanake or Lanngisi because there's higher LP rewards in lower sec systems for mission running...
But at the risk of being devoured by a blob of gankalysts should you exceed their shiny/ehp limits and without being able to use local as easily as you would in nullsec (you can still set reds from experience though) there is an obvious risk increase in taking your shiny (or not) mission boat into a 0.5 system and the relative blitzing speeds you can achieve... and you're further from Jita for when you want to sell your scanner probes.
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2729
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 17:16:21 -
[3396] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is. But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread. afkalt wrote:The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. No, that's not the point. You can scream "Grr Moons!" until you pass out, it means nothing. SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income. Individual income should not be worse than highsec. Period.
Or so you are being told yes ...
''But but it is Alliance income'' , why yes and guess what an Alliance is made out off , individuals.
''But but we only fund SRP with it , it does not go into my wallet'' , why yes this means nothing goes OUT of your wallet too when you loose a ship in battle.
Sometimes i truly wish we could go back to ''the old days'' even if it was just for one week so that you could see the difference.
You could ask CCP to take away the moons and make them null-sec AND empire mineable belts.And in return they should favour you with a higher income then lvl 4's.But that wouldn't matter , you'd start complaining about incursions.And then forget to mention that you have BETTER incursions in your home system but no one does them.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
804
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 17:25:22 -
[3397] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Since we appear to have gotten over the trollceptor we can finally have a proper discussion. Every two or three pages someone attempts to do a "round-up" that always seems to be "since everyone (well, only the half I side with) has agreed (or not) about the Trollceptor, we can all now stop talking about (brush it under the carpet and hope the devs forget about it)"
If its such a non-issue, why are those who "don't consider it an issue", so desperate to quash conversation about it?
|
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1439
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 17:27:07 -
[3398] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I have been looking at the timezones. Now, I know that EVE is not only played in these countries but the main timezones of relevance would probably be: UTC for Europe Moscow +3 Australia +11 PST -8 (USA west) EST -5 (USA east) For prime times, the 24 hour distribution looks something like: UTC RUS AU PST EST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 +3 +11 -8 -5
I honestly donGÇÖt think 4 hours is adequate. You can see a couple of large zones around AU for a start, and even Europe and USA are too far apart. What about a system whereby the prime time concept is still active but this is a peak time, rather than cut-off? Perhaps according to GreygalGÇÖs suggestion of the extent of this window being defined by sov indexes. Or what about having it fade in and out, with a sliding percentage of structures being available for an hour or two either side of prime time? I am concerned about the AU timezone. I think AU players will become second class citizens in null. And yet I agree that sov shouldn't require a 24h defence. Perhaps a graduated approach could work.
It's kind of a stealth admission that the single shard has failed. If you have a system where realistically the only wars that can be fought are between 2 identical TZ alliances you may as well give them their own server to do it on. Otherwise like you said you just have a caste system where certain TZ are always stuck doing the one job of defending, or repairing services, or whatever. This already happens etc etc etc but now they are concreting it into design so are one step closer to admitting the failure.
This will become obvious when these changes are deployed onto the Chinese sever and everyone wonders what the point of this TZ window is.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
804
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 17:28:38 -
[3399] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: You're comparing optimal Highsec to least-optimal nullsec. That's apples to oranges. Compare a -1.0 system to Osmon L4s and you'd have a fair comparison.
You are aware that that every guy in Nullsec can't do an anomoly in a -1.0 right? Whats the upper limit on people who can recieve missions in Osmon? (answer = there isn't one)
Also, I assume you realise that the more people doing anomolies the more dangerous it becomes for each one (since the rats-per-hour glow on the map is intensifying and drawing carrion-birds, and as numbers reach a certain point, clever (Z-named) enemies can creep in system without being noticed)? Whereas each extra ratter in Osmon creates greater protection as there is more targets for the finite number of gankers? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
714
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 17:38:25 -
[3400] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: You're comparing optimal Highsec to least-optimal nullsec. That's apples to oranges. Compare a -1.0 system to Osmon L4s and you'd have a fair comparison.
You are aware that that every guy in Nullsec can't do an anomoly in a -1.0 right? Whats the upper limit on people who can recieve missions in Osmon? (answer = there isn't one) Also, I assume you realise that the more people doing anomolies the more dangerous it becomes for each one (since the rats-per-hour glow on the map is intensifying and drawing carrion-birds, and as numbers reach a certain point, clever (Z-named) enemies can creep in system without being noticed)? Whereas each extra ratter in Osmon creates greater protection as there is more targets for the finite number of gankers?
I have had this one thrown back at me before, when I see only people from the same alliance doing missions in Osmon I will let you know...
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
297
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 17:44:37 -
[3401] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:You are aware that that every guy in Nullsec can't do an anomoly in a -1.0 right? Whats the upper limit on people who can recieve missions in Osmon? (answer = there isn't one)
Also, I assume you realise that the more people doing anomolies the more dangerous it becomes for each one (since the rats-per-hour glow on the map is intensifying and drawing carrion-birds, and as numbers reach a certain point, clever (Z-named) enemies can creep in system without being noticed)? Whereas each extra ratter in Osmon creates greater protection as there is more targets for the finite number of gankers? Completely ignoring that LP gets watered down as more and more people saturate the market with SoE items.
So no, the LP suffers from free market economics and devalues for every extra person running them. Whether or not that has reached it's peak yet is unclear due to market manipulations and the launch of the SoE ships just over a year ago massively inflating the LP/isk return.
Nestor prices: Been in free fall for the last year Probes: Pretty much static Astero/Stratios: All over the place but most definitely down year on year. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
726
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 18:04:22 -
[3402] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: You're comparing optimal Highsec to least-optimal nullsec. That's apples to oranges. Compare a -1.0 system to Osmon L4s and you'd have a fair comparison.
You are aware that that every guy in Nullsec can't do an anomoly in a -1.0 right? Whats the upper limit on people who can recieve missions in Osmon? (answer = there isn't one) Also, I assume you realise that the more people doing anomolies the more dangerous it becomes for each one (since the rats-per-hour glow on the map is intensifying and drawing carrion-birds, and as numbers reach a certain point, clever (Z-named) enemies can creep in system without being noticed)? Whereas each extra ratter in Osmon creates greater protection as there is more targets for the finite number of gankers?
And yet not everyone runs missions in Osmon or the other two SOE hubs. If we're comparing incomes, use a fair comparison. Max to max, min to min, or median to median (averages can be misleading so I prefer medians for income).
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
300
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 18:51:22 -
[3403] - Quote
Yep, a lot of mission runners also do 'stupid' things like run for the bounties rather than LP blitzing - and these guys might also be trading in the LP they do earn in stores that directly compete with FW items. I even know of some mission runners that have the same 'free ore' mindset of bad industry players and use their LP to buy faction ammo because it's 'free' and helps them shave a few seconds off each site (did the math once and they were losing 5m/site doing this)
If EVERYONE in highsec that runs missions minmaxed for the best isk:LP ratio you'd see a very different market and the peak incomes would be a lot lower as a result of the increased competition. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10131
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 19:05:24 -
[3404] - Quote
afkalt wrote:
Calling me a troll because it dfoesn't suit your viewpoint doesnt make my points invalid.
The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. If that income is not making it down to line members - that is an issue to take up with your leadership.
The problem here is that you are completely off base. You've convinced yourself that alliance boss types are keeping all the isk and that somehow they are the problem.
They aren't.
The problem is that I can go an make WITH A BOMBER elsewhere more than I can make with TWO faction battleships.
The problem is that I can go and blitz burners WITH A FACTION FRIGATE as long as my faction standing is about 8 and make more than I can with TWO faction battleships.
The problem is that I can make more (several times more) with 1 TOON IN A TECH2 FIT CARRIER blitzing lvl 5 missions than I can with 2 deadspace fit faction battleships. Hell, the carrier to carrier comparison between null and low sec lvl 5s is equally unbalanced.
The fact that legions of scrubs of using afktars to make 60 mil per hour on alts all the time (making null sec look like this huge great income generator) has nothing to do with the above testable and observable facts. The fact that you can crunch rocks oor do pi is also immaterial , most 'grunts' do 'combat pve' for income and that's what we are talking about.
The discussion about the obvious imbalances always gets obscured by the nonsense naysays who haven't even taken the time to test and observe for themselves. Because of this, the same people who spend all this time posting about how the imbalance (that they haven't even tried to test) doesn't exist thus don't understand how the imbalance WARPS everything CCP trys to do with null sec (and this is the prefect example, had it not be fore the existence of extreme alternate income generating activities outside of null like high sec incursions and mission farming and mission blitzing, what CCP believed would have happened might actually have happened and instead of being a rental desert, null might have been a more fun place).
And because so many of you are too blind to see the obvious (as CCP is, as evidenced by Fozzie thinking null is 'valuable' because someone wants to rent it), this new system will fail just as hard as dominion did as people remove PVE alts to other places rather than try to rat in congested systems (inviting pve ship losses thus exacerbating the already existing imbalances). |
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
142
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 19:06:44 -
[3405] - Quote
More prime time questions:
Would the prime time timers on sov targets be blanket times covering all alliance/corp sov assets or would there be individually assigned prime time timers for sov targets so different time zones can take part in defense?
Any adjustment of prime times by calendar for weekday/weekend player behaviors?
Real eyes Realize Real Lies
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30789
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 19:12:42 -
[3406] - Quote
There's no need to be fancy and say Osmon for level 4s. The common / popular CN variety yield a bil a week for just a few hours a day. Point being that's one account in high sec supporting five accounts via PLEX.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Lupe Meza
Hedion University Amarr Empire
88
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 19:14:39 -
[3407] - Quote
If they're really dedicated to shaking up the ant farm, which they seem to be, I don't know why so many are assuming resource allocation is going to remain as is.
Even if an alliance owns the most valuable space now, doesn't mean that in Phase 3 or 4, other areas are made more valuable or Null itself normalized in terms of value to encourage flow of players and undoing years of stagnation.
I wouldn't be surprised if some resources got shifted around to make it just about impossible to monopolize them, so that every organization has to worry about their logistics and industry on some level. The "who cares about x space" and "small organizations will only get 'useless' space" mindset assumes that resources are not going to be looked at as well; and I doubt if a change is made it is going to be to buff the space of the mega rich.
Don't shoot the messenger, just saying that is a strange expectation given the paradigm ship I'm seeing; which seems to be promoting more inclusive, smaller, and distributed entities conflict and dynamics. The large entities can of course remain large, but there will pressure from capable members just going off and raising their own flag elsewhere rather than wait for scraps at the table. Take the whole trollceptor idea. Now it is conceivable that players can be ordered to go out and harass others on their own game time with no intent of actually holding the space.
But I agree with the folks that believe that will get old fast. I'll go further and say once all these guys see how empowering the new system is in claiming space, the next step to just breaking off entirely and just living in the space, keeping what they earn rather than being a drone. There will always be followers, but I see the potential here for a lot of grunts capable of doing better for themselves go out and do just that.
It'll be interesting to see if the powers that be can not only keep the galaxy under their thumb, but their even more valuable now line members and "pet" organizations. Keeping 1000's "in line" just got harder especially when the subcap guys got a whole lot more valuable.
Again there are some serious forces making it seem like the bigger you are the more likely you are to eventually break apart due to the stress of your own mass. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
300
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 19:16:53 -
[3408] - Quote
I don't really know the full extent of null income but I know my CFC friend laughed at me for having to actively point and click and be on TS running incursions in highsec whilst he watched a movie with his afktars spinning around on a separate monitor.
And he showed me their SRP program spreadsheet once, oh my days, free PvP whenever you want it (edit: remind me how this isn't a player income when I have to buy and replace my own ships from my personal income in highsec!) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
852
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 19:25:39 -
[3409] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:afkalt wrote:
Calling me a troll because it dfoesn't suit your viewpoint doesnt make my points invalid.
The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. If that income is not making it down to line members - that is an issue to take up with your leadership.
The problem here is that you are completely off base. You've convinced yourself that alliance boss types are keeping all the isk and that somehow they are the problem. They aren't.
I know.
In my alliance, I know where that isk goes: into an extremely generous SRP and ship subsidy program.
However I'm not so foolish as to discount that as "income". I want a fitted BLOPS BS - half paid for. A fitted dread? Half paid for. I lose them in a fight? Paid for.
THAT'S where that income is going - I don't think it is being trousered by a few. SRP and subsidies are SO generous I could get by on half assed PI alone and never want for anything.
To ignore the alliance propping us up like that, to not understand how that is an equivalent to income quite simply beggars belief.
I've never contested the bounty farming doesnt equal other areas of space - but who said it's meant to? Sure, risk/reward and all that....but that makes sense ONLY if we absolutely ignore the SRP and subsidy programs out there. You cannot look at a single income stream and ignore the others.
I dont actually want them to change it, either. If they racked up bounties to replace moon goo then I'd need spend more time doing soul destroying ratting instead of the fun stuff I enjoy today. The situation today is that the actions of many pay for us all. In return for this we defend these assets tenaciously in between casual pewpew - that's where the fun is at. Not sitting shooting red crosses looking at Osmon with envious eyes.
And you know what, no-one bitches about being poor either. Funny that. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
274
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 19:33:04 -
[3410] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread. I don't hate null, I just am not cut out to take orders from other people for fun. I also do poorly at yoga. I am the one, here, engaging you. I am taking notes and asking the devs questions based on what you ask, here. Did that last night on Eve Down Under. But if you would rather I stepped aside to make room for other CSM to talk to you. /me steps to one side oh, look yeah I represent players of the game. ALL the game and anybody who thinks the upcoming sov changes will only have an effect on null is a class A fool. So I am here, not trolling, not joking around, doing what I said I would do for one more week. If I wasn't the person you voted for it does not matter. I am still here. and as I said before . . . I am already talking with NPSI folks about roams once this goes live. I don't like to LIVE in null. Doesn't mean I don't drop in for a visit now and again. m
CSM members are ordinary capsuleers who sometimes make themselves extraordinary, thanks Mike for focusing on what needs to be done o7
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
|
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
275
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 19:49:56 -
[3411] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Since we appear to have gotten over the trollceptor we can finally have a proper discussion.
Industry index does need to be more than mining, because industry involves more. I wouldn't include moon mining or reactions though, because those can be done really easily, just a medium Caldari to react Atmo Gases and Evaporite Deposits and you immediately easy industry index, all you have to do is fuel it.
Research, manufacturing, and PI would be good though.
Yeah, no.
It's obvious that you never lived in null, because if you did, you'd know that due to each racial/specialty outpost carries an exclusive, specific role related bonus, you have systems with an outpost you exclusively use for either research, manufacturing, or reprocessing. You don't do it all in one system. Therefore these activities alone aren't good candidates for solely basing out industry index on.
And you can't change outpost types, or destroy them once you deploy them.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong, and that's probably related with your lack of prior experience of life in null. |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
276
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:00:36 -
[3412] - Quote
flakeys wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is. But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread. afkalt wrote:The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. No, that's not the point. You can scream "Grr Moons!" until you pass out, it means nothing. SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income. Individual income should not be worse than highsec. Period. Or so you are being told yes ... ''But but it is Alliance income'' , why yes and guess what an Alliance is made out off , individuals. ''But but we only fund SRP with it , it does not go into my wallet'' , why yes this means nothing goes OUT of your wallet too when you loose a ship in battle. Sometimes i truly wish we could go back to ''the old days'' even if it was just for one week so that you could see the difference. You could ask CCP to take away the moons and make them null-sec AND empire mineable belts.And in return they should favour you with a higher income then lvl 4's.But that wouldn't matter , you'd start complaining about incursions.And then forget to mention that you have BETTER incursions in your home system but no one does them.
You are wrong because moon income is never abundant (nor it should be) and present on numerous amount of null moons enough to count as individual income. While you might be able to see individuals operating POS for themselves in sovereign null, you'll almost never see individuals making personal income from their personal POS mining out high-end moon goo.
Can a single individual defend a high-end moon all by himself? No, a single individual can never do that.
Therefore, a private individual will always have to rely on a group of players that can actually defend a moon through cooperation. That's where you have alliances come into play, because they are realistically able to defend such high-end moons, they end up owning them and using them for alliance expenses.
Besides, high-end moons have been nerfed heavily many cycles ago. They alone never provide an income stream that can keep a GSF-like generous SRP up and running. And the fact that I'm mentioning GSF SRP should be telling, because even that program, known for it's generosity, does not cover "all of your losses". Money always ends up coming out of player wallets.
Therefore, I'm sorry, but it's painfully obvious that as a person who has never taken up life in null before, you don't know what you're talking about and you're out of your element. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30789
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:07:13 -
[3413] - Quote
All for the good of many
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
277
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:15:47 -
[3414] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I don't really know the full extent of null income but I know my CFC friend laughed at me for having to actively point and click and be on TS running incursions in highsec whilst he watched a movie with his afktars spinning around on a separate monitor.
And he showed me their SRP program spreadsheet once, oh my days, free PvP whenever you want it (edit: remind me how this isn't a player income when I have to buy and replace my own ships from my personal income in highsec!)
I really dislike 'a friend of mine' or 'a friend of a friend' type of hearsay posting, therefore, I felt compelled to chime in as an authority on the points mentioned in your post.
I'm a member of the Goonswarm Federation SRP team and I do have plenty of experience with what you are describing as "afktar ratting" in your post. As a matter of fact, I routinely push out advisory ratting fits for mass alliance wide adoption, taking into account considerations such as cost, longevity, survivability in PvP encounters and ease of training.
With those said, when it comes to afktar ratting, an individual in a system with desirable truesec (very rare) and the best type of anomalies (very limited even in best truesec systems) is looking at 17m ISK per tick with maximum skills after alliance taxes. Before taxes, the figure is close to 20m ISK depending on the specific corporation (and their specific tax rate). Rat drops per anomaly are worth 2-3 m ISK on normal conditions and salvage is practically isn't worth anything. (Picking up drops and salvaging will take up your time, affecting your income)
So, could you tell me how 51M ISK per hour on an account through anomaly bounties is an extravagant amount of income? One can make almost two times this figure running L4 missions in high-sec! |
Vicar2008
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
127
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:29:40 -
[3415] - Quote
Having just listened to the soundcloud with Fozzie with Eve Down-Under, all stick and no carrot and the various other changes. Good luck with keeping peeps in 0.0 or ingame for that matter. I can really see no reason why i would want to stay in 0.0 or ingame with current changes.
And no.... you cant have my stuff, I may need it once they actually do something that makes me want to login again. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2838
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:30:15 -
[3416] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:[So, could you tell me how 51M ISK per hour on an account through anomaly bounties is an extravagant amount of income? One can make almost two times this figure running L4 missions in high-sec! Such poverty out there in 0.0. How do you guys survive on your piddly 50m isk/hour direct isk handouts from CONCORD?
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
853
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:37:28 -
[3417] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Alp Khan wrote:[So, could you tell me how 51M ISK per hour on an account through anomaly bounties is an extravagant amount of income? One can make almost two times this figure running L4 missions in high-sec! Such poverty out there in 0.0. How do you guys survive on your piddly 50m isk/hour direct isk handouts from CONCORD?
afk at that |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
278
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:41:14 -
[3418] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:I love the whole "but the CFC will break it".
The CFC can currently break it if they want to. Nothing's currently stopping them.
PL, BL, N3... If they seriously wanted or cared to break people, they can.
The effort isn't worth it, because troll as they may, the fight will be elsewhere and they cannot maintain control of whatever they reinforce.
Let's say day 1, CFC reinforces everything in null. What happens day 2? As much as people like to say "we will camp you in and break you", nobody really enjoys it.
I wouldn't worry. Shrink and defend your space. Send people to more forward systems to act like a firewall (CFC tried to do that with Brave Newbies).
You should ask players older than you about Goon behavior. And while at it, take a good look at our coalition player base. Then reevaluate everything you've said, and you'll be closer to being factual. You are speculating wildly for the sake of your argument or posting with wishful thinking. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
302
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:41:26 -
[3419] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:I really dislike 'a friend of mine' or 'a friend of a friend' type of hearsay posting, therefore, I felt compelled to chime in as an authority on the points mentioned in your post.
I'm a member of the Goonswarm Federation SRP team and I do have plenty of experience with what you are describing as "afktar ratting" in your post. As a matter of fact, I routinely push out advisory ratting fits for mass adoption, taking into account considerations such as cost, longevity, survivability in PvP encounters and ease of training.
With those said, when it comes to afktar ratting, an individual in a system with desirable truesec (those are rare) is looking at 17m ISK per tick with maximum skills after alliance taxes. Before taxes, the figure is close to 20m ISK depending on the specific corporation (and their specific tax rate). Rat drops per anomaly are worth 2-3 m ISK on normal conditions and salvage is practically isn't worth anything. (Picking up drops and salvaging will take up your time, affecting your income)
So, could you tell me how 51M ISK per hour on an account through bounties is an extravagant amount of income? Well obviously you must appreciate I don't want to get my associate in trouble nor draw attention to my other toons hence why I post from this PS alt - but he pretty much showed me that he actually MADE MONEY from losing ships in PvP whenever he feels like it (aside from perhaps buying insurance and the initial purchase?). It was a fair time ago but within the last year as far as I remember, sadly I cleared my cache since then so can't link directly nor reference the spreadsheet I was shown (I'm sure it would get removed from the public eye if I did anyways).
51m/hr more or less passively (keep local visible whilst doing anything else on your PC) is an extremely good income for New Eden and even more so when you can pretty much just put it towards plexing your accounts or frittering away as you wish rather than replacing lost pvp ships. To be honest I'm pretty sure there are some suboptimal L4 runners that would look at that kind of income with a green glint in their eyes especially since they don't have to do all that active clicking to achieve it. I wonder what the L4 income for flying an afktar would be for comparison of effort/isk/hr?
The point is, very little effort for 50m/hr and you think that's poor widdle old me suffering in nullsec with my incredibly generous SRP program. My sympathy is suprisingly absent. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1389
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:48:48 -
[3420] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Just to point out:
Again, yes, the CFC will reinforce everything in sight if given the chance. The reason for this is that there is no reason, **** you. As it stands, this system will give them the chance.
Accept that as a baseline. This man understands Goonswarm Federation better than CCP does.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
279
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:49:34 -
[3421] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Alp Khan wrote:[So, could you tell me how 51M ISK per hour on an account through anomaly bounties is an extravagant amount of income? One can make almost two times this figure running L4 missions in high-sec! Such poverty out there in 0.0. How do you guys survive on your piddly 50m isk/hour direct isk handouts from CONCORD?
Most of the times, we scale. We scale both our real life money and time investments, as well as in game ISK. This probably explains why null only harbors financially successful players coming from hardcore backgrounds, rather than casual.
Some of us also divest the sources of our seed income. Personally I made my initial fortune with my alts on Factional Warfare in low-sec, of all the places. I used to do 350-400M ISK per hour on a single account depending on the control tier of the faction I was running for. With that kind of income, I quickly diversified even in that specific FW-related lowsec activity, and put another alt in the opposing faction, so that I could ride the tide of balance more consistently at higher tiers. I can still so that, with minimal risk, and make that money.
You should think more the next time you decide to troll, that will probably act as a deterrent against your inner urge to do so. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6565
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:58:38 -
[3422] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Alp Khan wrote:[So, could you tell me how 51M ISK per hour on an account through anomaly bounties is an extravagant amount of income? One can make almost two times this figure running L4 missions in high-sec! Such poverty out there in 0.0. How do you guys survive on your piddly 50m isk/hour direct isk handouts from CONCORD? Most of the times, we scale. We scale both our real life money and time investments, as well as in game ISK. This probably explains why null only harbors financially successful players coming from hardcore backgrounds, rather than casual. Some of us also divest the sources of our seed income. Personally I made my initial fortune with my alts on Factional Warfare in low-sec, of all the places. I used to do 350-400M ISK per hour on a single account depending on the control tier of the faction I was running for. With that kind of income, I quickly diversified even in that specific FW-related lowsec activity, and put another alt in the opposing faction, so that I could ride the tide of balance more consistently at higher tiers. I can still so that, with minimal risk, and make that money. You should think more the next time you decide to troll, that will probably act as a deterrent against your inner urge to do so. No, it only encourages people to nerf anything goons do.
I mean if you think of FW obviously you want to nerf fweddit. since they've been cfc for so long, you want to end their fw dream (they don't have much of a 0.0 dream, i think like 4 systems)
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
730
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 21:06:23 -
[3423] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Since we appear to have gotten over the trollceptor we can finally have a proper discussion.
Industry index does need to be more than mining, because industry involves more. I wouldn't include moon mining or reactions though, because those can be done really easily, just a medium Caldari to react Atmo Gases and Evaporite Deposits and you immediately easy industry index, all you have to do is fuel it.
Research, manufacturing, and PI would be good though. Yeah, no. It's obvious that you never lived in null, because if you did, you'd know that due to each racial/specialty outpost carries an exclusive, specific role related bonus, you have systems with an outpost you exclusively use for either research, manufacturing, or reprocessing. You don't do it all in one system. Therefore these activities alone aren't good candidates for solely basing out industry index on. And you can't change outpost types, or destroy them once you deploy them. I'm sorry, but you're wrong, and that's probably related with your lack of prior experience of life in null.
I've spent my share of time in sov null (check my killboard from back in the day if you like, I've been in Scalding Pass, Tribute, and Immensia; as a member of The Unthinkables, early in their sovnull days, and Nulli starting midway through Tribute, though Nulli had rather **** leadership).
Mining alone doesnt represent "industry" either. PI is still viable based on your rebuttal, and theres nothing to prevent people from using a station for something other than its main objective. I can still manufacture in a Minmatar outpost, even though there arent as many slots as there are in an Amarr outpost. Theres also nothing preventing my from upgrading an outpost to be better at off specialization tasks, so I could upgrade a Minmatar outpost to do more manufacturing jobs.
So I dont see whats wrong with having other industrial activites help increase industrial index, especially since its so damn hard to get and keep it up as it is according to people who actually mine for a living.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30789
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 21:21:08 -
[3424] - Quote
That pro synergy guy thinks he's clever by posting a dated screenshot of SRP figures, but all he's doing is making players in scrubby orgs jealous.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
305
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 21:30:50 -
[3425] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:That pro synergy guy thinks he's clever by posting a dated screenshot of SRP figures, but all he's doing is making players in scrubby orgs jealous. All I'm doing is undermining your argument that null is poor as it currently is on a player-by-player basis, the screenshot is just the current version of an out-of-date google sheet which is all my acquaintance showed me when singing the virtues of a null life with the CFC sometime last year, I'm sure there's one with better XML trawling that has the right figures loading on every page instead of a bunch of errors.
It hopefully also dampened your colleague's doubts about the veracity of my previous comments since 'my friend' had access to 'your spreadsheet' and shared it 'with me' |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30789
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 21:33:39 -
[3426] - Quote
On the contrary, there's a reason why we've made claims about the ISK barely supporting our ops. Obviously. Because we're not just sitting and stuffing it in our coffers. This isn't one of those lowsec l337 hotdrop groups who don't know how to support their people.
No one cares about your leaked SRP. I just told you, it's basically good propaganda.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
305
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 21:37:12 -
[3427] - Quote
Sure it's great propaganda for recruitment, I have no trouble with there being more goons to kill, especially since these changes are going to make blobbing so much tougher - which, let's be honest, is the only PvP you actually succeed at. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30790
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 21:39:49 -
[3428] - Quote
oooh nice burn.
PS, post with your main. And while we're posting intel screenshots here's one of mine.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
305
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 21:46:04 -
[3429] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:PS, post with your main Nah I'm good thanks, I like wrecking other people's attempted points of discussion too much for them to attempt retribution on me whilst I'm having fun playing the game outside of the forums (although the forum game is fun too).
So null isn't poor by mine and your own disclosure...intys aren't going to work as trollceptors or if they do they're gonna get nerfbatted with modifications to the entosis link stats (see the Eve Down Under discussion)...likewise for T3s...so where were we...ah yes primetimes and indices. Please continue (sorry for the tangent) |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30790
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 21:50:12 -
[3430] - Quote
gladly.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
305
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 22:08:29 -
[3431] - Quote
Sorry my OCD is sparking off...you realise you can shrink the left hand column down to a smaller size don't you? Unless you have vision difficulties in which case my apologies.
All the best xx |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30790
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 22:09:37 -
[3432] - Quote
I maximized it for that screenshot, so you could see the avatars as more proof those aren't copy pasted screenshots.
You think you're the only one with alts? I've made 200 million ISK in the time you started getting chatty today. Ask me how I know high sec AFK ISK is so good.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
305
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 22:14:06 -
[3433] - Quote
Thanks, I didn't care either way though, shall we discuss the proposed Sov changes now, your interest in my online avatars and false belief in me having an interest in yours is making me uncomfortable, try grindr. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30790
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 22:15:16 -
[3434] - Quote
No idea what grindr is, m8. What is it.
oh. lol ok thanks for that.
Earlier I said I pulled in 200 mil, I was mistaken, it is 250 mil.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
305
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 22:20:09 -
[3435] - Quote
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=grindr
Honestly I'd expect members of an in-game group founded around reddit to at least know how to use a search engine
Now about them sov changes eh? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30790
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 22:26:56 -
[3436] - Quote
Yeah, we should be back on track any minute now... wait for it...
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
4661
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 22:32:38 -
[3437] - Quote
Emma Yassavi wrote:This may have been suggested already, but would it be possible to allow large alliances with good TZ-diversification to increase the amount of time their structures are vulnerable in exchange for increased benefits from those buildings? (say, a base of 20% bonus for the base 4 hours of vulnerability, with an additional 5% bonus for each hour of vulnerability per day)
It seems like it would potentially play well into giving people a trade-off between risk and reward. Also, it would allow the alliances that already have TZ-diversification a reason to keep those alliances together, though with potentially much greater risk. Though I don't know about the numbers, I like the idea of trading vulnerability for some bonus. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 22:54:18 -
[3438] - Quote
One more change, if you please. Add moon miners to the list of POS structures that you need sov to operate in non-npc 0.0. Then, you're golden. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
293
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:04:01 -
[3439] - Quote
davet517 wrote:One more change, if you please. Add moon miners to the list of POS structures that you need sov to operate in non-npc 0.0. Then, you're golden.
Why? You don't need it to operate them in npc null. You don't need it to operate them in Empire. Why would you need it to operate them in sov null? What's the intent of the change, and how does the change promote the intended result? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12039
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:12:45 -
[3440] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:davet517 wrote:One more change, if you please. Add moon miners to the list of POS structures that you need sov to operate in non-npc 0.0. Then, you're golden. Why? You don't need it to operate them in npc null. You don't need it to operate them in Empire. Why would you need it to operate them in sov null? What's the intent of the change, and how does the change promote the intended result?
The answer to all of those questions is "sour grapes".
Hell, some people are so deluded about moons that someone told me in this very thread that one good moon can generate 7 trillion isk per month.
"grr, moons"
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30790
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:18:54 -
[3441] - Quote
Chyeah, and losing sov makes the whole tower or towers explode, or is it something more complicated that CCP would totally get around to implementing.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3994
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:20:07 -
[3442] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it / replying to it.
The Rules: 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
126
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:20:43 -
[3443] - Quote
Goddamn, why all this talk about ISK per hour? Look, null isn't poor. Not from a top-down perspective or bottom-up individual incomes, subsidized (SRP) or unsubsidized. Players can make money, and do. There's no point derailing the conversation by trying to compare Isk/hour and risk/reward in null versus anywhere. It's a dead-end tangent. The bigger issue is related to the isk that can be generated in areas of higher population density. Players, corps, alliances all spead out now because to earn an income commensurate with nullsec, they are forced to spread out. Players don't want to login and try and earn in an overpopulated area. That just isn't a very efficient use of their time as PLAYERS of a video game. So what do they do? They spread out. And out. And out. The space in between goes generally unused. Maybe some moons or jump bridge/logistics routes, but a lot of unused space that is very low yielding even when upgraded.
Again, nobody is screaming poverty in nullsec, nor should they be. But if you want contraction, in terms of claimed space, create an environment that can adequately support higher population density rather than ghettos of working poor. And no I don't mean they would be literally poor. But the top third of all systems in nullsec can only support so many pilots. You want more to live there, then they're going to have to change that.
Perhaps, before all the debate about sov mechanics that will push back the nullsec empires, they should at least talk about their vision of nullsec from an economic standpoint and population standpoint. Because right now, in two consecutive major changes (jump nerf and now this) nullsec is only hearing the nerfs while being expected to hope for what will make it worth enduring at some later date. Sometimes, if you want the players to react in a certain way, a better way, a more positive way, you help them see both sides of your vision. Because right now, the only proven parts of the vision are negative for nullsec residents. Even the ever-hopeful Manfred Sideous sounds tired of telling everyone to stay hopeful. I'm sure it will all work out on the end. But the end is months away. Three for this change and who knows how many for the supposed Phase 3. That's a lot of time for players to be questioning whether or not it was worth it. Thwae changes are intended to reinvigorate nullsec. Perhaps it's worth spelling out some of that visions to the players sooner, even if the changes won't come until later. Psychologically it may just make the bitter pills a bit easier to swallow.
Now please, back to the debate on isk/hour running SOE missions vs Isktar ratting. |
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2597
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:20:46 -
[3444] - Quote
It is believed to be in each 'isk source communities' best interest to undersell what they make and oversell everybody elses. This is in the forlorn hope that CCP does not monitor isk making activities along with LP and other forms of reward.
Sadly They do. And they are not fools nor easily swayed by anecdotal evidence.
Making sov worth while has a LOT of aspects to it but I am not sure arguments over who is the poorest and who is the richest is part of it as, in the end, CCP will use internal data for such decision making processes OR they will go out with competent people to actually see what is what as they did with WH folks earlier.
But it is not supposed to be about who MAKES more but whether you enjoy doing it. Many a person has told me they don't care what isk is made in missions they refuse to shoot little red crosses all day. Incursions is adependent on a ton of other factors. Ratting in null depends on having secure borders. Each has its give and take and you are comparing apples and oranges when you try to stack them up against each other.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12040
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:29:56 -
[3445] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: But it is not supposed to be about who MAKES more but whether you enjoy doing it.
Uh, no Mike, I'd have to say that risk vs reward is still relevant.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30790
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:32:45 -
[3446] - Quote
Ok, Mike.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
305
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:34:53 -
[3447] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: But it is not supposed to be about who MAKES more but whether you enjoy doing it.
Uh, no Mike, I'd have to say that risk vs reward is still relevant. As Mike points out - we can't weigh risk versus reward without looking at profit vs loss vs time spent vs amount of effort involved...and anecdotal or even theoretical analysis of the figures we anecdotally have available pales in significance to what CCP has available to look at.
edit: And we presume CCP WILL tweak those figures if necessary to keep people from all migrating back to highsec? Or do we have that little faith? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12040
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:37:47 -
[3448] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: As Mike points out - we can't weigh risk versus reward without looking at profit vs loss vs time spent vs amount of effort involved
Righto. Because if you actually do that, highsec is equally as damned.
Quote: ...and anecdotal or even theoretical analysis of the figures we anecdotally have available pales in significance to what CCP has available to look at.
And CCP is well known for ignoring a problem until it explodes in their face. I think I'll keep right on in my attempts to impress the importance of this on them. Because otherwise they'll likely ignore it until it implodes and slap on another ill conceived bandaid like the ESS.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:40:11 -
[3449] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: But it is not supposed to be about who MAKES more but whether you enjoy doing it.
Uh, no Mike, I'd have to say that risk vs reward is still relevant. As Mike points out - we can't weigh risk versus reward without looking at profit vs loss vs time spent vs amount of effort involved...and anecdotal or even theoretical analysis of the figures we anecdotally have available pales in significance to what CCP has available to look at. edit: And we presume CCP WILL tweak those figures if necessary to keep people from all migrating back to highsec? Or do we have that little faith?
I lack faith. I always have, I always will. A history of too much stick too little carrot in nullsec has made me so. I could make a list if I am doubted. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:48:10 -
[3450] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:
Why? You don't need it to operate them in npc null. You don't need it to operate them in Empire. Why would you need it to operate them in sov null? What's the intent of the change, and how does the change promote the intended result?
I thought it was obvious. More reasons to fight = good. As it stands now, you need a super-cap fleet to threaten an R-64, and the coalitions can always bring a bigger one. Make moon mining (in sov space) dependent on an iHub upgrade, and make the yield dependent on the index. It will make the systems that they are in a constant target.
Anything that will force fights is a good thing.
Passive moon mining is probably the biggest single mistake that the designers of Eve made. It probably should go away entirely in favor of active mining of T2 resources, but this would at least put these at risk. They aren't under any significant risk now. |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30790
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:49:31 -
[3451] - Quote
Those ihubs can be grief popped every couple weeks. You want moon mining thrown in the same pot?
Help, I can't download EVE
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:56:03 -
[3452] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Those ihubs can be grief popped every couple weeks. You want moon mining thrown in the same pot?
Yep. You want the constant stream of passive income? Deal with the "grief poppers". In other words, play the damn game.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:56:28 -
[3453] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Your right, sadly. Regardless of CCP grand plans and ideas, no unaligned small alliance is going to take and hold any sov worth having. Many will try and this is the basket CCP is throwing all the eggs in. When a small unaligned alliance takes sov, it will create content (for a few days here and there) for the bloks. There will be lots of kills over relatively short periods and CCP will produce metrics to show how successful the sov changes are. Next comes a round of nerfs "re-balancing" to draw player attention away from the mess (mini game) called sov.
My only real question here is; How long will it take CCP to realize and acknowledge the mistakes.
NB; 3 of my old friends plan on resubbing for a month when these changes hit - This looks like the best troll mechanic CCP has ever introduced (talking about Entosis) and we want in on it.
- - - - - - - - - - - Sleep 8 hours - work 8 hours - Eve 4 hours - that leaves you with 4 hours a day to have a life; be a parent, eat meals, go shopping and get anything else you need to do done. Eve is meant to be a game. A game is meant to be fun. Fun is meant to be leisure time. None of these is meant to be a four hour a day, seven day a week commitment.
Small alliances are not going to go for sov worth having, at least initially, to do so is ignoring reality and those that try will fail. Taking poor sov systems however is fun and not expensive now and doable. So what if people come in and roll it over, the whole idea is to be able to compete and this allows people do so, even if it means that their efforts are in the end nothing more than grinding away and getting swatted, before this system you could not even do that. The fun part which all you doomsayers ignore is the fun of just putting a TCU down and seeing what you can get, up the stakes a bit and add a deathstar, what else can we get to jump in, this will be fun, for example how many people can you get jump fatigued so they cannot get to a serious battle, seriously so many strategic options. I even see big blocks supporting small guys next to their enemies space, I am sure taht will happen, honorable third party and all that... And the people who could just go off and cause mayhem with no need to defend their own stuff are now going to be in the boat with the rest of us, of course they will defend against it better than the small guys, but who expects otherwise, only idiots. EDIT: If people have not seen one theme on my posts about Sov, its to do it because I want to do it and I think I can have fun doing it, but my motive has nothing to do with ISK generation because I know it is not going to be worth it. CCP has to look at the value of low true sec systems. Yes I can make ISK out of them if I try but so much is loaded against you, I would for example run around in a PvP ship blapping belt rats just because I can, small ISK generation but why not while waiting to blap aGoon interceptor with a 20m or 80m module, but my past experience in this game is that people will just do everything they can to stop you operating there, so for me its plant your flag, have fun around the PVP generated from that. So you think sov for small groups, should be about wasting player time, isk, recourses and giving the big groups content. Nice concept but no , your wrong. The new sov mechanics will mean simply throwing isk at a system to hold sov is literally throwing that isk away.
Why would any small group, which will usually have limited resources, simply throw those resources away for 2 days of limited content?
Your going to get 8 hours content over 48 hours, per billion isk per system, invested. So roughly 6 billion isk (a constellation) will generate 2, 4 hour sessions of content for those of the group online for the 4 hour mini game.
Yeah, I can see lots of small alliances going for that. It's not like players living in Nul need somewhere they can call home and build or mine or rat or even just have a station they can stockpile stuff in. With the ease of station flipping, being camped in by some mega alliance so obviously plays right into the hands of every small alliance that wants to sov - Doesn't it?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30790
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 23:56:34 -
[3454] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Those ihubs can be grief popped every couple weeks. You want moon mining thrown in the same pot? Yep. You want the constant stream of passive income? Deal with the "grief poppers". In other words, play the damn game. m8
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10132
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:06:39 -
[3455] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Alp Khan wrote:[So, could you tell me how 51M ISK per hour on an account through anomaly bounties is an extravagant amount of income? One can make almost two times this figure running L4 missions in high-sec! Such poverty out there in 0.0. How do you guys survive on your piddly 50m isk/hour direct isk handouts from CONCORD?
By doing a lot of it.
I don't afktar, I've used everything. Right now I'm using dual rattlesnakes. Those get 25 mil per tick per toon. Before taxes on 2 characters I make 150 mil per hour. More than enough to 'live on' and I do. Ratting is good because it's liquid isk, and because escalations break up the monotony.
But then I realize Im being silly because while Im hanging TWO faction BS's out their for captor gangs to hunt, I could just log on 1 o the other 2 toons and make MORE in high sec blitzing burners or in FW doing lvl 4s.
Whenever this topic comes up, people seem to think we're asking for more isk when we make so much.
We aren't we're point out a severe imbalance that warps the effects of EVERYTHING ccp tries to do to null sec. We're telling CCP (and you) that it doesn't makes sense that they make null harder to 'live' in on one hand and expect us to do that when we can simply take our alts and go run incursions, fw missions, high sec mission etc etc.
I keep posting the same dev blog because even after 4 years some of you haven't learned the lesson. CCP tends to develop things "in a vacuum" (without taking the rest of new eden into account). When they nerfed anoms we just went and did incursions (and some GANKED incursion runners) and null turned into a rental desert.
CCP could fix the issue by making a mechanic for sov null missions rather than anoms. Missions wouldn't be nearly as afkable as anoms, and good pve'r could squeeze more out of sov null like we do everywhere else.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
730
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:10:15 -
[3456] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arrendis wrote:davet517 wrote:One more change, if you please. Add moon miners to the list of POS structures that you need sov to operate in non-npc 0.0. Then, you're golden. Why? You don't need it to operate them in npc null. You don't need it to operate them in Empire. Why would you need it to operate them in sov null? What's the intent of the change, and how does the change promote the intended result? The answer to all of those questions is "sour grapes". Hell, some people are so deluded about moons that someone told me in this very thread that one good moon can generate 7 trillion isk per month. "grr, moons"
I think the person who said 7 trillion a month was quoting the gross value of all R64s.
Rain6637 wrote: Ok, yeah I agree. Make POSes drop ownership to Entosis.
If the POS is offline I'm all for this. So many offline faction towers laying around W-space
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30790
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:13:50 -
[3457] - Quote
Naw, online too.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:17:38 -
[3458] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Alp Khan wrote:I really dislike 'a friend of mine' or 'a friend of a friend' type of hearsay posting, therefore, I felt compelled to chime in as an authority on the points mentioned in your post.
I'm a member of the Goonswarm Federation SRP team and I do have plenty of experience with what you are describing as "afktar ratting" in your post. As a matter of fact, I routinely push out advisory ratting fits for mass adoption, taking into account considerations such as cost, longevity, survivability in PvP encounters and ease of training.
With those said, when it comes to afktar ratting, an individual in a system with desirable truesec (those are rare) is looking at 17m ISK per tick with maximum skills after alliance taxes. Before taxes, the figure is close to 20m ISK depending on the specific corporation (and their specific tax rate). Rat drops per anomaly are worth 2-3 m ISK on normal conditions and salvage is practically isn't worth anything. (Picking up drops and salvaging will take up your time, affecting your income)
So, could you tell me how 51M ISK per hour on an account through bounties is an extravagant amount of income? Well obviously you must appreciate I don't want to get my associate in trouble nor draw attention to my other toons hence why I post from this PS alt - but he pretty much showed me that he actually MADE MONEY from losing ships in PvP whenever he feels like it (aside from perhaps buying insurance and the initial purchase?). It was a fair time ago but within the last year as far as I remember, sadly I cleared my cache since then so can't link directly nor reference the spreadsheet I was shown (I'm sure it would get removed from the public eye if I did anyways). 51m/hr more or less passively (keep local visible whilst doing anything else on your PC) is an extremely good income for New Eden and even more so when you can pretty much just put it towards plexing your accounts or frittering away as you wish rather than replacing lost pvp ships. To be honest I'm pretty sure there are some suboptimal L4 runners that would look at that kind of income with a green glint in their eyes especially since they don't have to do all that active clicking to achieve it. I wonder what the L4 income for flying an afktar would be for comparison of effort/isk/hr? The point is, very little effort for 50m/hr and you think that's poor widdle old me suffering in nullsec with my incredibly generous SRP program. My sympathy is suprisingly absent. edit: Hah, had it BM'd all along on my Eve account: http://i.imgur.com/Q9zvg5B.jpg
And this somehow has anything to do with personal income? With that wall of words, I'm sad to see that you are deflecting, and worse, even actively trying to direct the readers into thinking that null dwellers swim in ISK by linking just a single, outdated sheet.
But, even in the face such blatant ingenuity, I'll still give you the courtesy of a proper answer. Firstly, the chart you posted is outdated. Secondly, that chart doesn't even show that the maximum amount a GSF member can draw from SRP program for regular brawling and roaming related losses per month are limited to a certain amount. This amount is capped at low single digit billions. Lastly, ever since the moon goo nerfs, our SRP program is financed largely through line member taxation of various income generation methods, including, but not limited to, ratting bounties.
I'm telling you that I can make, flying a mere T2 frigate with almost zero risk at low-sec, up to 400m ISK per hour on a single character. I'm telling you that incursions everywhere are fountains of LP that converts to tidy amount of ISK, providing low to medium nine digit ISK income per hour. I'm telling you that even a newbie highsec L4 mission runner on a battleship, through chosing the optimal faction to do missions for, easily nearly doubles the 52M ISK per hour that an Ishtar pilot can make in null.
And you are trying to claim here, that null has plenty of venues from ratting in a T2 HAC and making 52M ISK (at best) per hour on a single character. You don't even mention or know that every system in null have a limited number of anomalies, and thus, can support a very limited number of people ratting. The risk of ratting in null? You don't even come close to mentioning or touching that! An incursion runner in highsec does not carry the risks that a null dweller does. A character running FW L4s in lowsec isn't risking anything, and the chance of losing his 400M ISK per hour generating T2 frigate are slim to none! A L4 runner in any shape or form doesn't risk anything worthwhile in highsec while earning income! He won't even lose his cheap L4 boat as long as he avoids fitting unnecessarily expensive modules!
Next time you want to comment one an activity in this game, please make sure that you have plenty of experience with doing it yourself. My answer covers various income generating activities in low-sec and high-sec that I personally have taken up in the past. Unlike yourself, I've been there and done everything I cited in my post.
And yet, you, who has never lived out in null, are feeling comfortable with coming out to this thread and claim that income in null is all well and fair! |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
309
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:23:16 -
[3459] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:I think the person who said 7 trillion a month was quoting the gross value of all R64s. It was me, yep that's what I meant...later calculations with more uptodate figures showed it as 4t across all space for all *known* moons R8 and higher for ones that cover their POS fuel costs and after subtracting their POS fuel costs - so disregarding anything that only pays a partial fuel cost and disregarding the huge number of moons that aren't included in dotlans figures.
Considering a huge proportion of those are only owned by the major blocs that's at least 1 trillion/month each (very lowball estimate, see above) that they're passively generating with no effort except "We have more supers than you" |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
309
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:26:44 -
[3460] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:the maximum amount a GSF member can draw from SRP program for regular brawling and roaming related losses per month are limited to a certain amount. This amount is capped at low single digit billions. Bit of a blast from the past since ISD *ahem*
But blow me, only a couple *billion* in pvp losses are covered per person per month...which obviously then aren't paid for out of their personal wallets.
Poor little bees, they must be struggling to rub their iskies together out there. |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30790
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:30:44 -
[3461] - Quote
This thread sucks
Help, I can't download EVE
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
730
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:32:41 -
[3462] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:This thread sucks
Yea that initial burst of rage burned out. Wonder when the individual threads for each issue will be posted.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2911
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:36:17 -
[3463] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote...
I'm telling you that even a newbie highsec L4 mission runner on a battleship, through chosing the optimal faction to do missions for, easily nearly doubles the 52M ISK per hour that an Ishtar pilot can make in null.
I earn more than this running level 4 missions in my trusty Velator armed with civilian mining lasers !
Jeez, I sure do feel sorry for all you null-sec paupers.
This is not a signature.
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:41:32 -
[3464] - Quote
I've been seeing a lot of posts rightfully citing that sovereign null offers little to nothing for individual level income generation when compared with low-sec, wormholes and even high-sec. I'm reading posts that include concerns on this new sovereignty system proposal putting a lot of burden on defenders, yet offering them almost nothing to an individual for income generation.
Let me use a literary quote here and ask you all;
Is a null dweller not entitled to the sweat of his brow? "No," says the man salvaging L4 mission wrecks at high-sec, "the wealth belongs to the high-sec." "No," says the man living in his wormhole, "The wealth belongs to my access limited, well monitored chunk of isolated space." "No," says the bomber pilot taking his cloaky ship through the gates in low-sec, "The wealth belongs to the faction warfare."
I say it is time that we set our sights on the reality of unfairness here, and reject those answers. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3995
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:44:54 -
[3465] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and the one quoting it.
The Rules: 5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Hugi Ozuwara
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:47:32 -
[3466] - Quote
Go Fozzie! These changes will really shake things up and cause the stagnant nulsec groups to get out there and start moving around outside the blob. These changes sound like they will make nulsec life far more dynamic and interesting.
I am super excited and so should every small and medium sized corp across the galaxy. Warfare is going to feel a lot more like special ops tactical and a lot less like trench warfare. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
293
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 01:30:06 -
[3467] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Arrendis wrote:
Why? You don't need it to operate them in npc null. You don't need it to operate them in Empire. Why would you need it to operate them in sov null? What's the intent of the change, and how does the change promote the intended result?
I thought it was obvious. More reasons to fight = good. As it stands now, you need a super-cap fleet to threaten an R-64, and the coalitions can always bring a bigger one. Make moon mining (in sov space) dependent on an iHub upgrade, and make the yield dependent on the index. It will make the systems that they are in a constant target. Anything that will force fights is a good thing. Passive moon mining is probably the biggest single mistake that the designers of Eve made. It probably should go away entirely in favor of active mining of T2 resources, but this would at least put these at risk. They aren't under any significant risk now.
You don't need a supercapital fleet to threaten an R64. We took one in Querious last month with maybe 2 dozen ishtars and a handful of basilisks. We'd still have it if we hadn't ended the deployment. We had all of 8 capitals in the entire deployment, and I don't think we'd gotten the dreads down there by the time we took the moon.
Also, since you won't need a TCU to deploy an IHUB, you won't need sov to have an IHUB upgrade. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2841
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 01:32:50 -
[3468] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Alp Khan wrote:[So, could you tell me how 51M ISK per hour on an account through anomaly bounties is an extravagant amount of income? One can make almost two times this figure running L4 missions in high-sec! Such poverty out there in 0.0. How do you guys survive on your piddly 50m isk/hour direct isk handouts from CONCORD? Most of the times, we scale. We scale both our real life money and time investments, as well as in game ISK. This probably explains why null only harbors financially successful players coming from hardcore backgrounds, rather than casual. Some of us also divest the sources of our seed income. Personally I made my initial fortune with my alts on Factional Warfare in low-sec, of all the places. I used to do 350-400M ISK per hour on a single account depending on the control tier of the faction I was running for. With that kind of income, I quickly diversified even in that specific FW-related lowsec activity, and put another alt in the opposing faction, so that I could ride the tide of balance more consistently at higher tiers. I can still so that, with minimal risk, and make that money. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. So again, what's the problem? You guys are making 100bil/month on high end moons in Dekelin, on top of nearly 50m/hour nearly passive income ratting.
Bottom Line: If null were more valuable, then you could charge more for rent.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
283
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 01:35:31 -
[3469] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Alp Khan wrote:the maximum amount a GSF member can draw from SRP program for regular brawling and roaming related losses per month are limited to a certain amount. This amount is capped at low single digit billions. Bit of a blast from the past since ISD *ahem* But blow me, only a couple *billion* in pvp losses are covered per person per month...which obviously then aren't paid for out of their personal wallets. Poor little bees, they must be struggling to rub their iskies together out there.
I see that it was publicly posted before. Therefore, I'll state it here for reference. Reimbursement cap per member for GSF SRP is 1b/month. Not even a couple, just one billion, which one tends to hit fast in an environment like null where you often have to fly T2 hulls in order to be competitive in PvP engagements.
Now do you have anything of substance to offer or cite, or are you so keenly intent on ridiculing yourself? I'm not seeing any facts or numbers coming out of your posts that supports your, uh, simply ridiculous theory that individual level null income is just peachy over at null?
I've given you numbers which are solid, set in stone, and can be verified through other sources or those with experience. These numbers show that a regular guy can make a lot more money individually through PvE at low-sec, wormholes and even at high-sec. More than that, he wouldn't even have to take any serious risk in low-sec or high-sec, and if he is with a competent wormhole group, while he is doing PvE, that wormhole will be on lockdown.
You are just offering speculative rhetoric mixed in with a sense of humor that is slightly underdeveloped than we would have liked it to be. |
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1439
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 01:35:50 -
[3470] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:It is believed to be in each 'isk source communities' best interest to undersell what they make and oversell everybody elses. This is in the forlorn hope that CCP does not monitor isk making activities along with LP and other forms of reward.
Sadly They do. And they are not fools nor easily swayed by anecdotal evidence.
Making sov worth while has a LOT of aspects to it but I am not sure arguments over who is the poorest and who is the richest is part of it as, in the end, CCP will use internal data for such decision making processes OR they will go out with competent people to actually see what is what as they did with WH folks earlier.
But it is not supposed to be about who MAKES more but whether you enjoy doing it. Many a person has told me they don't care what isk is made in missions they refuse to shoot little red crosses all day. Incursions is adependent on a ton of other factors. Ratting in null depends on having secure borders. Each has its give and take and you are comparing apples and oranges when you try to stack them up against each other.
m
Well, what data are they using? Bear in mind that raw isk/hr or bounty pay out data is not going to give an accurate account of money made. Isk/hr has to be calculated after losses (ship ganked) and costs in isk (logistics, rent paid) and/or opportunity cost activity (time spent on CTA to secure the space). A typical CTA of 150 pilots for example could equal 450 man hours needed to be applied to the total isk/hr ratio and by the sounds of this sytem we'll be having a lot more of that. I obviously don't know what they are using but when soneome says "they're making a **** ton of isk out in null" sounds like someone is just looking at some graph of bounties.
You wouldn't want people judging incursion income on the logic of 31.5mil per site from the time you log in to the time logged out, because you know there are variables - fleet waiting time, moving time, contests and so on. |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6567
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 01:46:00 -
[3471] - Quote
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:It is believed to be in each 'isk source communities' best interest to undersell what they make and oversell everybody elses. This is in the forlorn hope that CCP does not monitor isk making activities along with LP and other forms of reward.
Sadly They do. And they are not fools nor easily swayed by anecdotal evidence.
Making sov worth while has a LOT of aspects to it but I am not sure arguments over who is the poorest and who is the richest is part of it as, in the end, CCP will use internal data for such decision making processes OR they will go out with competent people to actually see what is what as they did with WH folks earlier.
But it is not supposed to be about who MAKES more but whether you enjoy doing it. Many a person has told me they don't care what isk is made in missions they refuse to shoot little red crosses all day. Incursions is adependent on a ton of other factors. Ratting in null depends on having secure borders. Each has its give and take and you are comparing apples and oranges when you try to stack them up against each other.
m Well, what data are they using? Bear in mind that raw isk/hr or bounty pay out data is not going to give an accurate account of money made. Isk/hr has to be calculated after losses (ship ganked) and costs in isk (logistics, rent paid) and/or opportunity cost activity (time spent on CTA to secure the space). A typical CTA of 150 pilots for example could equal 450 man hours needed to be applied to the total isk/hr ratio and by the sounds of this sytem we'll be having a lot more of that. I obviously don't know what they are using but when soneome says "they're making a **** ton of isk out in null" sounds like someone is just looking at some graph of bounties. You wouldn't want people judging incursion income on the logic of 31.5mil per site from the time you log in to the time logged out, because you know there are variables - fleet waiting time, moving time, contests and so on. Depends if you have an agenda like "nullsec needs to be nerfed"
If so, you also want to claim "blue donut" and so on.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Anonymously Toasting
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 01:48:36 -
[3472] - Quote
As was said earlier
"Every small medium corp should be excited about this"
Sooooo as a larger group what benefit do I get? There already is small medium corps/groups visiting us frequently enough; and they just got another avenue to be a serious pain in the ass (which requires nothing but one module to deviate from their normal operating procedures) now there is a very real consequence to not feel like playing with them from time to time.
So let's see ccp's great sov changes amount to 1) turning traveling into gameplay and 2) giving another way for ceptors to be trolls and space whack a mole...... 10 years and this is the best you can do?? I'd rather grind structures than chase ceptors around..... |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
283
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 01:49:05 -
[3473] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
I earn more than this running level 4 missions in my trusty Velator armed with civilian mining lasers !
Jeez, I sure do feel sorry for all you null-sec paupers.
Again, just like the high-sec salvager, you are attempting to troll, and doing it very poorly at that.
Now, I'll just repeat what I've said before regarding high-sec individual PvE income vs. null-sec individual PvE income.
Through choosing the faction he runs missions for (a faction with a high LP to ISK conversion), a high-sec L4 missioner, flying a T1 battleship with rather mediocre skills is able to make almost two times more ISK per hour over a highly trained Ishtar pilot in null space anomalies killing rats. Let's not also forget that if he is rather aware and informed, the high-sec pilot has almost no risks that he gets to be burdened with, and one cannot say the same about a pilot ratting in null. Low-sec is probably the craziest, an individual flying a T2 frigate at FW can make up to 400 million ISK per hour, which is EIGHT times what the Ishtar pilot makes in null. Again, because he is flying a stealth bomber or a cloaky T3, the risk he will be facing is extremely low. Wormholes? Well, they are even worse. We are talking billions per hour when it comes to PvE activities of a well established organization. They face increased risks over low-sec and high-sec, but they also are competent enough to work the wormhole mechanics, so that their system would be on virtual lockdown when they are doing PvE.
Can anyone in their right mind claim that null individual income is fair and balanced vis-a-vis other types of space?
Are the trolls posting able to dispute any of what I've been citing? |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
310
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 01:54:34 -
[3474] - Quote
So are we ignoring what Mike said about anecdotal evidence versus the data in CCP's hands? |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2842
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 01:56:58 -
[3475] - Quote
1 bil/month, 700 bill in losses for entire alliance, 700 billion/ 700 active pvp'ers / 11k man alliance = 1 bil. What's the problem again?
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
283
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 02:17:12 -
[3476] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:It is believed to be in each 'isk source communities' best interest to undersell what they make and oversell everybody elses. This is in the forlorn hope that CCP does not monitor isk making activities along with LP and other forms of reward.
Sadly They do. And they are not fools nor easily swayed by anecdotal evidence.
Making sov worth while has a LOT of aspects to it but I am not sure arguments over who is the poorest and who is the richest is part of it as, in the end, CCP will use internal data for such decision making processes OR they will go out with competent people to actually see what is what as they did with WH folks earlier.
But it is not supposed to be about who MAKES more but whether you enjoy doing it. Many a person has told me they don't care what isk is made in missions they refuse to shoot little red crosses all day. Incursions is adependent on a ton of other factors. Ratting in null depends on having secure borders. Each has its give and take and you are comparing apples and oranges when you try to stack them up against each other.
m
I'm sorry to say that I disagree with you Mike.
It's surprisingly easy to figure out solid figures for individual level PvE income generation in null. And even with the best-case scenarios assuming optimal variables, figures for null are simply not able to compete with other venues in different types of space. Again, through experience, it relatively is easy to figure out averages of individual income amounts that other venues offer, and CCP's raw internal data can only be in line with this.
The only way an individual living in sovereign null and wanting to do PvE can hope to compete with low-sec FW L4 income, j-space PvE income and even high-sec income is through scaling up the number of accounts and characters that he uses for his PvE activity. As a null resident, do I have to scale up to five active accounts or more to be competitive with a single account can earn in other types of space? Can anyone call this good game design, or fair? And yet, here you are, toeing the line that CCP has been telling us all along, that they somehow have internal data that refutes obvious figures that anyone can calculate on their own.
There is more, but I personally shudder to think about considering that as a possibility. Perhaps this is done blatantly on part of developers. Only party that benefits from a null resident having to scale up his subscriptions and number of accounts is... CCP.
I will have to assume that what you are probably mixing up analysis with raw data and might be implying that the conclusions CCP reaches through their own analysis is vastly different. I'm surprised that you are able to call raw data as anecdotal evidence.
Lastly, I personally see this as an opportunity for a case-study, but that will have to take place on a different venue than EVE Online forums, and it certainly is a bidding for later time. However, I feel as if this unfairness and blatant misdirection coming from CSM members and even CCP developers is an issue that all null residents should be aware of and should react against. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6567
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 02:20:40 -
[3477] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:So are we ignoring what Mike said about anecdotal evidence versus the data in CCP's hands?
edit: Also, for a humble 'salvager' I probably SPEND more than most people in CFC on pvp each month lol Bragging about your pvp credentials in comparison to a bunch of blobbers doesn't say much
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
283
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 02:27:50 -
[3478] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:So are we ignoring what Mike said about anecdotal evidence versus the data in CCP's hands?
edit: Also, for a humble 'salvager' I probably SPEND more than most people in CFC on pvp each month lol
Are we able to see CCP's internal data? No.
Can we measure up constants, account for variables with best and worse case scenarios, do the math ourselves and make comparisons? Absolutely.
Within the scope of even simple mechanics, would our data have a chance of deviating seriously from CCP's data? Not at all.
Besides, I don't believe even a CSM member such as Mike is privy to the full scope and content of CCP's internal data. As such, I find it curious that he appears so keen on referring to something we or -probably- himself does not have access to.
However, as I mentioned, we can very well calculate individual income through personal experience, or in the absence of that, experimentation, or even mathematical deduction. That data is consistent and reliable and it will always be consistent with any private data that CCP can hope to gain on the very same individual activity, with the same variables.
I'm sad to see that a CSM member is just toeing CCP's line which is "We know better than you guys can figure out through our mythical private, internal data" here. Anybody, even a high-sec salvager that feels comfortable to comment on life in a type of space he has never lived in, can calculate individual level income for different types of space.
Tell me, why, as a null resident, do I have sustain over five subscriptions every month if I prefer to live in null and take actual risks, versus running a single account at Faction Warfare and earning the same ISK? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6567
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 02:35:58 -
[3479] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:I'm sad to see that a CSM member is just toeing CCP's line which is "We know better than you guys can figure out through our mythical private, internal data" here. That's the point of it. stonewalling and misdirection
a perfect lightning rod as you voted for it, they get to troll us as well. it's beyond perfect
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
34513
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 02:42:20 -
[3480] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Tell me, why, as a null resident, do I have sustain over five subscriptions every month if I prefer to live in null and take actual risks, versus running a single account at Faction Warfare and earning the same ISK? Why? Only because it's your choice.
What others do to earn ISK and how much they earn shouldn't even matter. If you can make enough ISK to sustain your gameplay, then how much others earn is not important.
The whole comparison is pointless because all the choices others make are totally available to you also.
That you chose a different option is no problem. But you make that choice knowing what the risks are and what is required to manage them.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10133
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 03:01:12 -
[3481] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Tell me, why, as a null resident, do I have sustain over five subscriptions every month if I prefer to live in null and take actual risks, versus running a single account at Faction Warfare and earning the same ISK? Why? Only because it's your choice. What others do to earn ISK and how much they earn shouldn't even matter. If you can make enough ISK to sustain your gameplay, then how much others earn is not important. The whole comparison is pointless because all the choices others make are totally available to you also. That you chose a different option is no problem. But you make that choice knowing what the risks are and what is required to manage them.
I'm sorry, but this is wrong. "go to that broken thing" is an adaptation, it is not a solution. I have a minmatar militia alt that flies a purifier, and another alt with 3 carriers at a lvl 5 agent's station (with 3 I never have to light a cyno, just pod on over to the adjacent station and go). Yet another alt is in Lanngisi for missions.
I prefer null. I prefer anomalies, I'd LOVE to be able to LIVE in null. But when I need quick isk for a plex it's stupid to rat if Minnie is anywhere near tier 4 (hell, 3 in a pinch). It's stupid to warp a pirate BS to an anomaly when I can undock a freaking DRAMIEL in Lanngisi and make the same or more isk.
And so on. The most amazing thing is the incredible shortsightedness of the (non-null sec) posters who don't understand the interconnected nature of the game. The fact that null pve basically sucks (for high end PPVE players) means that EVERYONE who missions for Federation Customs (or other corps with lvl 5 agents) or the Tribal Liberation front sees lower values for their LP because of ME (and folks like me) who would have rather been doing pve in null. A properly set up null pve situation would see everyone happier and CCP would not see it's designs turned sideways (and that's what happens, CCP designs things in null and it doesn't work the way they want because of the low value of null to the individual grunt player).
At this point I just shrug, say oh well, and cash in yet more CONCORD or Minmatar LP. The game suffers for the imbalances, but my wallet never will. |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
284
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 03:01:35 -
[3482] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Tell me, why, as a null resident, do I have sustain over five subscriptions every month if I prefer to live in null and take actual risks, versus running a single account at Faction Warfare and earning the same ISK? Why? Only because it's your choice. What others do to earn ISK and how much they earn shouldn't even matter. If you can make enough ISK to sustain your gameplay, then how much others earn is not important. The whole comparison is pointless because all the choices others make are totally available to you also. That you chose a different option is no problem. But you make that choice knowing what the risks are and what is required to manage them.
Wrong.
Living in sovereign null is obviously a personal choice and a challenge, and one that I took up gladly. But absence of rewards in comparison with other types of space is simply developer neglect, or perhaps even worse, incompetence.
EVE is a sandbox designed around risk-reward balance in every type of activity you can imagine. But, curiously and suspiciously, the reward for PvE at sovereign null is missing in action.
I personally fight and provide resources as an individual to be able to hold the space and I live in and protect my assets. I have to do this every day, without exceptions.
The high-sec L4 runner, who can earn almost the double I can make with a single character per hour, doesn't have to put any serious assets at risk unless he is blinging unreasonably. He doesn't have to defend his access to the space he is living in. He doesn't have to do PvP.
The low-sec FW L4 runner, who can ridiculously make as high as EIGHT times that I can make in an hour on a single account, can do this on the cheap in a T2 frigate. He can avoid PvP if he knows what he is doing. If he doesn't, than all he loses is a 25 to 30M stealth bomber.
Tell me now, whereas all these people are getting rewarded extravagantly through CCP's game design choices, why is yours truly have to take the bum end of the deal, even when he is taking all of the risks in this game? Why is he forced to scale up the number of subscriptions and making CCP financial statements look tidy to be able to compete with the hourly income of a single account can generate in all other types of space, including high-sec? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6567
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 03:02:24 -
[3483] - Quote
Yeah, if sov becomes not worth holding it, we can end our own 0.0 dream and just go to highsec.
If someone is determined to stick it out then it's the same as asking for more punishment. In a way one could say that life out in null itself is asking to be punished. Also, more fatigue and less jump range tia
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
284
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 03:12:00 -
[3484] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Tell me, why, as a null resident, do I have sustain over five subscriptions every month if I prefer to live in null and take actual risks, versus running a single account at Faction Warfare and earning the same ISK? Why? Only because it's your choice. What others do to earn ISK and how much they earn shouldn't even matter. If you can make enough ISK to sustain your gameplay, then how much others earn is not important. The whole comparison is pointless because all the choices others make are totally available to you also. That you chose a different option is no problem. But you make that choice knowing what the risks are and what is required to manage them. I'm sorry, but this is wrong. "Go do that broken thing yourself" is an adaptation, it is not a solution. I have a minmatar militia alt that flies a purifier, and another alt with 3 carriers at a lvl 5 agent's station (with 3 I never have to light a cyno, just pod on over to the adjacent station and go). Yet another alt is in Lanngisi for missions. I prefer null. I prefer anomalies, I'd LOVE to be able to LIVE in null. But when I need quick isk for a plex it's stupid to rat if Minnie is anywhere near tier 4 (hell, 3 in a pinch). It's stupid to warp a pirate BS to an anomaly when I can undock a freaking DRAMIEL in Lanngisi and make the same or more isk. And so on. The most amazing thing is the incredible shortsightedness of the (non-null sec) posters who don't understand the interconnected nature of the game. The fact that null pve basically sucks (for high end PPVE players) means that EVERYONE who missions for Federation Customs (or other corps with lvl 5 agents) or the Tribal Liberation front sees lower values for their LP because of ME (and folks like me) who would have rather been doing pve in null. A properly set up null pve situation would see everyone happier and CCP would not see it's designs turned sideways (and that's what happens, CCP designs things in null and it doesn't work the way they want because of the low value of null to the individual grunt player). At this point I just shrug, say oh well, and cash in yet more CONCORD or Minmatar LP. The game suffers for the imbalances, but my wallet never will.
My thoughts and feelings on the matter at hand echo your post very closely. Thank you. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6567
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 03:13:23 -
[3485] - Quote
The real problem seems to be there's a bunch of really clever and able to adapt people in null, but they make one critically bad decision which they never take back ie: they have a 0.0 dream.
It's quite sad really. Once they finally get the message and leave, then null will be filled with the dumb kind of foolish risktakers that match ccp's 0.0 dream. (These are the people who are not good enough to survive in a null as it is).
Alternatively, it won't happen because the people not in null are too smart to come out to null. Then it is just left empty mostly... well eve is harsh, cold and unclaimed in that case
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1067
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 03:24:48 -
[3486] - Quote
Various feedback that I am getting, is that we are over reacting apparently.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 03:35:51 -
[3487] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:I'm sorry, but this is wrong. "Go do that broken thing yourself" is an adaptation, it is not a solution. I have a minmatar militia alt that flies a purifier, and another alt with 3 carriers at a lvl 5 agent's station (with 3 I never have to light a cyno, just pod on over to the adjacent station and go). Yet another alt is in Lanngisi for missions.
I prefer null. I prefer anomalies, I'd LOVE to be able to LIVE in null. But when I need quick isk for a plex it's stupid to rat if Minnie is anywhere near tier 4 (hell, 3 in a pinch). It's stupid to warp a pirate BS to an anomaly when I can undock a freaking DRAMIEL in Lanngisi and make the same or more isk.
Attn CCP and Mike:
Please add the above quote to your super-secret internal metrics.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
34513
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 03:44:41 -
[3488] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Tell me, why, as a null resident, do I have sustain over five subscriptions every month if I prefer to live in null and take actual risks, versus running a single account at Faction Warfare and earning the same ISK? Why? Only because it's your choice. What others do to earn ISK and how much they earn shouldn't even matter. If you can make enough ISK to sustain your gameplay, then how much others earn is not important. The whole comparison is pointless because all the choices others make are totally available to you also. That you chose a different option is no problem. But you make that choice knowing what the risks are and what is required to manage them. I'm sorry, but this is wrong. "Go do that broken thing yourself" is an adaptation, it is not a solution. I have a minmatar militia alt that flies a purifier, and another alt with 3 carriers at a lvl 5 agent's station (with 3 I never have to light a cyno, just pod on over to the adjacent station and go). Yet another alt is in Lanngisi for missions. It's the guys choice that he maintains more than five accounts (which I guess means 6 or so) to do what he does.
I maintain three accounts and live in null. That he maintains more than five accounts is his choice, independent of what anyone else does. It's pointless to compare, because he could chose to do something different, or like you, move alts to different locations to earn ISK to maintain whatever he wants to do in null.
Complaining about his situation because of what others manage to do is pointless. Good luck to whatever anyone else does.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 04:04:17 -
[3489] - Quote
Hugi Ozuwara wrote:Go Fozzie! These changes will really shake things up and cause the stagnant nulsec groups to get out there and start moving around outside the blob. These changes sound like they will make nulsec life far more dynamic and interesting.
I am super excited and so should every small and medium sized corp across the galaxy. Warfare is going to feel a lot more like special ops tactical and a lot less like trench warfare. I gather you have never been to nulsec. By all means you and your corp are welcome to come join the "special OPs tactical" warfare Excuse my mirth but that is just really funny.
The only change coming here is large alliances dropping sov in all the less desirable systems they've had for years and never used because, well, they just aren't worth anything.
You may however at 1st see small gangs roaming around RFing everything they can with the new Entosis module but the novelty and mind numbing repetitiveness of it will soon wear off. (a bit like pos syphons, they get used but not as much as one would have expected because more often than not, reward vs risk is just not there)
Mini games only remain interesting if they add something interesting and engaging for the majority. The Entosis module combined with a new mini game of constellation wide node bashing all done in a fixed 4 hour play period, has the capacity to kill nulsec content more than anything else CCP has ever come up with.
Nulsec alliances restricted/committed to home defense or attack for a minimum of 4 hours a day? Doesn't leave much time to actually play the game for the average player, who has 2 or 3 hours a day to play Eve.
This change is a little reminiscent of icons designed for 4k monitors. Will suit a minority of players well but the majority are left with something far from ideal.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Tamirr U'tath
ooailia Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 04:15:08 -
[3490] - Quote
Had an idea to address the timezone/primetime 'issue'
Split the day into four segments, six hours each. An alliance chooses a prime time, which is 6 hours wide (rather than the four currently, but this could be dynamic too)
Keep everything the same in terms of the prime time window - An attacker can take the objective entirely during prime time as the dev blog says. However, in each of the other three six-hour windows, attacking entosis link ships can make progress on the objective, which would reduce the timer during the prime time window.
For example: The capture time required for the objective is 40 minutes. You can capture this 100% during the prime time window, as normal. During each of the other 6-hour windows, the attacker has the option of reducing that time by using the new module, up to 25% per every six hours.
Lets say the prime time is 0000-0600. The attacker attacks in an off time (say 1200) and brings the progress to 25%. Six hours later (1800), a new fleet from the attacker hits the objective again and brings it up another 25%. If the defender does not respond, the attacker will only need 20 minutes during prime time to win the objective.
The attacker still must attack during the prime time to make the capture, but since they had the resources and timezone coverage, they get the advantage of a reduced timer during the actual capture.
At any time during the day, the defender can 'repair' or undo the progress made during that window. If they ignore the attack at 1200 eve time, they lose the 25%. If they respond to the second attack at 1800, they can undo the second attack by reducing it from 50% to 25%.
This would encourage a constant stream of attacking and defending fleets. The attacker can erode the defenders advantage by running fleets across multiple timezones. The defender still has the option of ignoring off-TZ attacks and repelling the final attack during the actual prime time, though they lose some advantage if they don't defend during the rest of the day.
If the defender is entirely dominant in one timezone, they have the option of ignoring all other attacks and just focus on defending within their prime time window, albeit with some eroded advantage. If the defender has full timezone coverage, they can respond to as many attacking fleets as they feel they need to.
If the attacker is biased towards one timezone, but has corporations or members within other timezones, those members can contribute to the sovereignty game by making the final timer shorter at the final event, within reason. |
|
Jobbered
Lost Legion Of Death Help Newbes Find a Way Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 04:31:13 -
[3491] - Quote
I have never been one to do the whole " the sky is falling " thing, but this is too much guys. After this wonderful announcement and the announcement at eve down under of the nerf to supers making them useless half of my corpmates have left our nullsec corp for hisec and wormholes. If your goal was to " shake up " nullsec by making it empty then kudos, mission accomplished. There will be plenty of sov changes as the space will be empty and free for the taking. Most of the people that complain about nullsec do not live in nullsec. They come to check it out and get blown up and boo hoo CCP better fix this. I have lived in null for 8 months now and have loved every minute of it but you are quickly taking that away from me by taking people that have been here much longer than I have out of the equation. I currently have six active accounts with 16 characters that are all training. I am not one to threaten rage quitting but I must say that as my subscriptions come due I will seriously think about renewing the half of them that live in null. |
Tamirr U'tath
ooailia Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 04:44:34 -
[3492] - Quote
This seems like a pretty reasonable way to make nullsec more attractive to hold as an alliance.
-Nerf mining in nullsec. If removing local is already going to be a thing, this is pretty much already done. Maybe just remove the super asteroids that were put into place recently. This has the net effect of buffing mining in highsec enormously. -Implement ring mining as the primary source of moon materials, and this would be almost exclusive to nullsec -Make the moongoo ore refinable. This lets alliances tax the ring mining as an income source. -(Optional) give wormholes some sort of advantage for the actual production of T3 ships, beyond just having the resources readily available. Maybe a POS mode with a faster build time which is only anchorable in wormhole space?
Since the industry expansion, nullsec has been particularly attractive for T2 production. You can build on that by letting line members mine the moon material required to drive this production. The alliance-level income is replaced by production research and refining tax in upgraded amarr caldari and minmatar stations.
Highsec mining gets buffed, because there is reduced supply of minerals from nullsec and increase demand for compressed ore for export to nullsec (for t1 hulls) Highsec becomes even more attractive for T1 production because of the ease of logistics moving massive quantities or minerals. The increase in profits from asteroid mining in nullsec would encourage this.
Nullsec becomes the go-to for all T2 production in the game. Alliances occupy sov to get the stations and ring-mining access in order to build T2 ships, which the rest of the game requires. Nullsec already has a built-in advantage for T2 production due to the station bonuses and access to moons. The difference here would be that the gathering of moon materials would be up to the ring miners and not alliance level logistics people.
Wormholes stay the same - the primary source of materials for T3 ships.
All you would need is new mining anomalies in nullsec which have moon material belts - at least for the start. The mining barge f1 mechanic for ring mining could be replaced later with something more interesting, but for now it would give nullsec a tangible economic reason for occupancy.
Usage of the stations to refine and build ships would also contribute to the industry index and increase the security of your space. Of course, the activity of ring mining would also increase this.
tl;dr - Highsec = T1 production, Nullsec = T2 production, Wormholes = T3 production. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 04:53:33 -
[3493] - Quote
Tamirr U'tath wrote:Had an idea to address the timezone/primetime 'issue'
Split the day into four segments, six hours each. An alliance chooses a prime time, which is 6 hours wide (rather than the four currently, but this could be dynamic too)
Keep everything the same in terms of the prime time window - An attacker can take the objective entirely during prime time as the dev blog says. However, in each of the other three six-hour windows, attacking entosis link ships can make progress on the objective, which would reduce the timer during the prime time window.
For example: The capture time required for the objective is 40 minutes. You can capture this 100% during the prime time window, as normal. During each of the other 6-hour windows, the attacker has the option of reducing that time by using the new module, up to 25% per every six hours.
Lets say the prime time is 0000-0600. The attacker attacks in an off time (say 1200) and brings the progress to 25%. Six hours later (1800), a new fleet from the attacker hits the objective again and brings it up another 25%. If the defender does not respond, the attacker will only need 20 minutes during prime time to win the objective.
The attacker still must attack during the prime time to make the capture, but since they had the resources and timezone coverage, they get the advantage of a reduced timer during the actual capture.
At any time during the day, the defender can 'repair' or undo the progress made during that window. If they ignore the attack at 1200 eve time, they lose the 25%. If they respond to the second attack at 1800, they can undo the second attack by reducing it from 50% to 25%.
This would encourage a constant stream of attacking and defending fleets. The attacker can erode the defenders advantage by running fleets across multiple timezones. The defender still has the option of ignoring off-TZ attacks and repelling the final attack during the actual prime time, though they lose some advantage if they don't defend during the rest of the day.
If the defender is entirely dominant in one timezone, they have the option of ignoring all other attacks and just focus on defending within their prime time window, albeit with some eroded advantage. If the defender has full timezone coverage, they can respond to as many attacking fleets as they feel they need to.
If the attacker is biased towards one timezone, but has corporations or members within other timezones, those members can contribute to the sovereignty game by making the final timer shorter at the final event, within reason. If prime time is set to US, for example, AUTZ people can't actually take the objective, but they can assist their allies by eroding the timer length throughout the day to make the final assault easier. So; Only mega alliances who have lots of people on at all hours of the day and night have a right to Sov. Some TZ's are expected to do the boring grunt work while prime time members get the fun part.
How is this ANY different or better than the current situation? All you want to do here is make sure the mega alliances and coalitions keep their monopoly on sov.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Tamirr U'tath
ooailia Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 05:07:59 -
[3494] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: How is this ANY different or better than the current situation? All you want to do here is make sure the mega alliances and coalitions keep their monopoly on sov.
Did you just look at my alliance tag and post, or can you just not read? What I said as-is would be a buff to the attacking side if anything, to the extent that I think you'd have to increase the base timer to compensate for the additional vulnerability.
|
Yuri Fedorov
Circle Mercs The Bastion
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 05:25:44 -
[3495] - Quote
So when are the the new threads and dev blogs comming? Its been tomorow for a few days now. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 05:27:17 -
[3496] - Quote
Tamirr U'tath wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: How is this ANY different or better than the current situation? All you want to do here is make sure the mega alliances and coalitions keep their monopoly on sov.
Did you just look at my alliance tag and post, or can you just not read? What I said as-is would be a buff to the attacking side if anything, to the extent that I think you'd have to increase the base timer to compensate for the additional vulnerability. I did read what you said and it is not by any means a good proposal.
Your idea is just bad and totally biased to mega alliances and coalitions.
- - - - - - - - - How many hours does the average person get to play eve? How much time per day should that person have to commit to "home defense"?
What chance does any group smaller than Goons for example, have of taking and holding sov if their assets can be gradually depleted while you are unable to protect them? What chance does a group smaller than Goons have if they need maximum numbers online for at least six hours per day to defend their assets.
Gee, lets see here, is your proposal biased towards - Goons, for example?
If you weren't a Goon my responses would have been exactly the same and had you read more than the last page of the thread you would have seen that. I have been very set in my views on these changes not helping small groups take sov since about page 6 of the thread. Don't care what alliance you belong to, advocate to make it harder for small groups to take sov (as CCP have promised) and I will do my best to shoot down your post.
Take your "I'm a Goon and getting picked on" to the other corner - I hadn't noticed your alliance, until you brought it to my attention, I was responding to your post.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1068
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 05:41:35 -
[3497] - Quote
Tamirr U'tath wrote:This seems like a pretty reasonable way to make nullsec more attractive to hold as an alliance.
-Nerf mining in nullsec. If removing local is already going to be a thing, this is pretty much already done. Maybe just remove the super asteroids that were put into place recently. This has the net effect of buffing mining in highsec enormously. Move rare ores from nullsec to highsec (ABC ores) -Implement ring mining as the primary source of moon materials, and this would be almost exclusive to nullsec -Make the moongoo ore refinable. This lets alliances tax the ring mining as an income source. -(Optional) give wormholes some sort of advantage for the actual production of T3 ships, beyond just having the resources readily available. Maybe a POS mode with a faster build time which is only anchorable in wormhole space?
Since the industry expansion, nullsec has been particularly attractive for T2 production. You can build on that by letting line members mine the moon material required to drive this production. The alliance-level income is replaced by production research and refining tax in upgraded amarr caldari and minmatar stations.
Highsec mining gets buffed, because there is reduced supply of minerals from nullsec and increase demand for compressed ore for export to nullsec (for t1 hulls) Highsec becomes even more attractive for T1 production because of the ease of logistics moving massive quantities or minerals. The increase in profits from asteroid mining in nullsec would encourage this.
Nullsec becomes the go-to for all T2 production in the game. Alliances occupy sov to get the stations and ring-mining access in order to build T2 ships, which the rest of the game requires. Nullsec already has a built-in advantage for T2 production due to the station bonuses and access to moons. The difference here would be that the gathering of moon materials would be up to the ring miners and not alliance level logistics people.
Wormholes stay the same - the primary source of materials for T3 ships.
All you would need is new mining anomalies in nullsec which have moon material belts - at least for the start. The mining barge f1 mechanic for ring mining could be replaced later with something more interesting, but for now it would give nullsec a tangible economic reason for occupancy.
Usage of the stations to refine and build ships would also contribute to the industry index and increase the security of your space. Of course, the activity of ring mining would also increase this.
tl;dr - Highsec = T1 production, Nullsec = T2 production, Wormholes = T3 production. Guys? Is this Tamirr fellow posting sarcastically or did the Goons let him loose on the forums too early?
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
293
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 06:21:33 -
[3498] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Guys? Is this Tamirr fellow posting sarcastically or did the Goons let him loose on the forums too early?
Contrary to popular opinion, Le Martini does not control every aspect of all of our lives. |
MrBowers
PH0ENIX COMPANY HOLDINGS Phoenix Company Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 07:13:59 -
[3499] - Quote
OKOK --- IDEA HERE!
After reading would be nice to have a bit more added to the TCU and addon's?
TCU ... why attacking so important!
Your alliance clams the system ...... here's what you gain! local only works for blues which is set by alliance owner! 25% discount on star-base fuel costs. mobile control units
Gate and or Station "Guns" - Mines - Bubbles - Control by mobile units. It limits how many you can use and how close you can place more next to one other! |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
699
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 07:56:41 -
[3500] - Quote
After reading Fozzie's comments on EVE Down Under, it's become clear to me that he's an absolute ****** who shouldn't be anywhere near game design.
He wants supers to be some kind of force multiplier giving some type of bonuses, instead of damage ships. He wants delayed local in nullsec. He wants to remove fleet warp. He wants to nerf combat probing. And he thinks nullsec has enough incentives as it is.
I'm starting to get seriously pissed off at CCP. Way to completely flip the bird to some of your most loyal subscribers.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2734
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 08:07:30 -
[3501] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:flakeys wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. afkalt wrote:The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. No, that's not the point. Y *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income. Individual income should not be worse than highsec. Period. Or so you are being told yes ... ''But but it is Alliance income'' , why yes and guess what an Alliance is made out off , individuals. ''But but we only fund SRP with it , it does not go into my wallet'' , why yes this means nothing goes OUT of your wallet too when you loose a ship in battle. Sometimes i truly wish we could go back to ''the old days'' even if it was just for one week so that you could see the difference. You could ask CCP to take away the moons and make them null-sec AND empire mineable belts.And in return they should favour you with a higher income then lvl 4's.But that wouldn't matter , you'd start complaining about incursions.And then forget to mention that you have BETTER incursions in your home system but no one does them. You are wrong because moon income is never abundant (nor it should be) and present on numerous amount of null moons enough to count as individual income. While you might be able to see individuals operating POS for themselves in sovereign null, you'll almost never see individuals making personal income from their personal POS mining out high-end moon goo. Can a single individual defend a high-end moon all by himself? No, a single individual can never do that. Therefore, a private individual will always have to rely on a group of players that can actually defend a moon through cooperation. That's where you have alliances come into play, because they are realistically able to defend such high-end moons, they end up owning them and using them for alliance expenses. Besides, high-end moons have been nerfed heavily many cycles ago. They alone never provide an income stream that can keep a GSF-like generous SRP up and running. And the fact that I'm mentioning GSF SRP should be telling, because even that program, known for it's generosity, does not cover "all of your losses". Money always ends up coming out of player wallets. As such, I'm sorry to tell you this bluntly, but it's painfully obvious that as somebody who has never taken up life in null before, you don't know what you're talking about and you're out of your element.
Yup , never been in null.Not like i spend over half my 10 years in the game in null-sec.And nope never been in the CFC either , nope B-R ... i never was there .....
Next time look at the players history before commenting , i AM ex CFC .My character is 6 years older then yours and has 12 times as many kills of wich the biggest chunk is null-sec kills.I have set my first feet in null-sec before BOB even became known. I KNOW that an Alliance is needed to keep a moon and no individual can do that , that does not mean it should not be accounted for as individual income because again an Alliance is made out of individuals.Something you seem to have a hard time grasping.
I've said it before but it REALLY is hard to understand , especially for guys from your Alliance , that the people who are FOR the changes might not live in null-sec now but that does not mean they do not have the aquired null-sec experience .DUH
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
437
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 08:37:22 -
[3502] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:a Sliding scale would be good.
a no index no useage system has a 24 hour vulnerability timer.
Soverenty takes 3.5 hours per level
military index takes 0.5h per level Industry index takes 0.5h per level
so a maxed usage system would have a vulnerable timer of 1.5 hours per day a system that has a tcu only and no usage has between 24 hours and 6.5 hours vulnerability per day
so a level 5 ratting system at max sov with no miners will have 4 hours per day a lvl 2 mining system with lvl 2 sov will be vulnerable for 16 hours during a day
ive been trying to balance these figures for an hour and they still don't seem to balance very well. they probably need to be percentage baised.
I agree that the numbers aren't quite there, but in general this idea is interesting. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
34517
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 08:37:40 -
[3503] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Tell me, why, as a null resident, do I have sustain over five subscriptions every month if I prefer to live in null and take actual risks, versus running a single account at Faction Warfare and earning the same ISK? Why? Only because it's your choice. What others do to earn ISK and how much they earn shouldn't even matter. If you can make enough ISK to sustain your gameplay, then how much others earn is not important. The whole comparison is pointless because all the choices others make are totally available to you also. That you chose a different option is no problem. But you make that choice knowing what the risks are and what is required to manage them. Wrong. No. Right.
You choose to have more than five accounts (6-10 I assume). That's your choice. It's not forced on you.
That someone else can get their ISK with 1 account. Good for them.
I maintain three accounts and live in nullsec. So what? It's not important.
Quote:Tell me now, whereas all these people are getting rewarded extravagantly through CCP's game design choices, why is yours truly have to take the bum end of the deal, even when he is taking all of the risks in this game? Why is he forced to scale up the number of subscriptions and making CCP financial statements look tidy to be able to compete with the hourly income of a single account can generate in all other types of space, including high-sec? Because clearly the expectation we have that Eve is a risk-reward game is a fallacy.
CCP have shown time and time again that they will panda to the people with the loudest voice. Risk-Reward is not something that applies in this game anymore.
Your choice to scale up your subscriptions is exactly that, a choice. No one is forcing you to do anything. So comparing your choice to others and claiming is as a must is just as much a fallacy as expecting this game to be risk-reward based. If you think you are getting the bum end of the deal, then make a different choice.
The game is not what it used to be.
At the end of the day, why do you live in null?
Clearly, the benefit overall that you gain from doing so, outways the downsides. ISK is not the only measure of benefit.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
718
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 08:51:50 -
[3504] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:So you think sov for small groups, should be about wasting player time, isk, recourses and giving the big groups content. Nice concept but no , your wrong. The new sov mechanics will mean simply throwing isk at a system to hold sov is literally throwing that isk away.
Why would any small group, which will usually have limited resources, simply throw those resources away for 2 days of limited content?
Your going to get 8 hours content over 48 hours, per billion isk per system, invested. So roughly 6 billion isk (a constellation) will generate 2, 4 hour sessions of content for those of the group online for the 4 hour mini game.
Yeah, I can see lots of small alliances going for that. It's not like players living in Nul need somewhere they can call home and build or mine or rat or even just have a station they can stockpile stuff in. With the ease of station flipping, being camped in by some mega alliance so obviously plays right into the hands of every small alliance that wants to sov - Doesn't it?
I may be wrong, there are quite a few old players who have been in 0.0 and have a lot of ISK that did not like how the Sov game developed, I seem to be in that group of people and most of my contacts want to own a system or two to say that they have done it, though I have done that, but in the main to have small fun fleet fights.
Yes we can afford to throw ISK at this, many of us have enough ISK, but it in no way compares to the major alliances, however I personally could do this 50 times before I run out of ISK, there are others I know who have way more than me.
The key part is in selection, it has to be either a system close to hisec or something very deep which requires good WH scouting skills and it has to be far enough away from the major alliances capital fleets, this makes it tricky...
I did not bother looking at a station or an IHUB, the IHUB is just going to get blown up no matter what you do and stations are a trap in my opinion. What you are looking to do is be hardly worth attacking in strength, so POS and a TCU will be enough, well there is more but I am not going to talk about that part.
Perhaps in doing this more people will do it and over time create a patchwork of small alliances that form a coalition that can be effective, however lets not kid ourselves in any meaningful way, if the Goons decided to clear that group out there is nothing they could do to stop it, so its a case of wait for the Goons to leave and re-build.
I expect that it might take longer than two days at times, maybe a month or two tops, some times it will be brutally quick, the thing is you go in light and expect to lose it, maybe the player base is not up to it, I don't know, I for one will give it a go.
One of my hopes is that the Mercs in hisec see this as an opportunity to develop into a new area.
And yes it will be throwing ISK away, but if you can starting making it stick who knows, it could change the game a fair bit...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Tau Phoenix
Eternal Darkness. Get Off My Lawn
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 08:55:04 -
[3505] - Quote
Just a view on the 'Freeport' mechanic. If a system or constellation is under attack and there is only one station in that area it would be reasonable to assume that both the attackers and defenders will stage out of that freeport station.
Given that CCP's idea of node capture is an effort to distribute the fights around a given constellation; when its time for the final take of the station i can see the server load suffering when an obscene amount of players start playing station and docking games. That would make the station system the prime fighting system and i can see that very little node capture would take place until the mass fighting of the station system has concluded....then whoever is left will go capture the nodes.
Also, given the fact that you can expect the station to be heavily bubbled i can see it getting very messy and laggy experience. |
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 08:56:07 -
[3506] - Quote
Let SOV control the yield of tthe R64/32 moons.
CCP Fozzie has snowed in completely on nullsec ratting as the major ISK faucet.
CCP has forgotten they themselves sprinkled a LOT of REALLY valuable moons around EVE space. And they have forgotten they added some 275 new moons not too long ago (as they nerfed Technetium). In low sec, where there is no sov, every R64 is owned by a powebloc. Every. Single. One.
How come it is like that CCP?
These R64/32 and also R16 moons are what drives conflict! Not sovereignity! These R64/32 are what the power locks fight for! Alliances will not fight for stupid ratting space for their grunts! That's not how it works, CCP!
Make SOV control the yield of the R64/32 moons so that: - no SOV brings really crappy yield - SOV brings better yield - upgrades in iHubs can generate better yield than we have today
This would also nerf the lowsec R64/32s and make them viable to own for smaller entities, but not so important for the power blocs. Nullsec R64/32s would be much more attractive and even MORE important to get hold of AND it would give a large incentive to own SOV in the systems where the valuable moons are! It would make SOV worth fighting for!
It will generate a lot of fights over both SOV and valuable moons. And moons don't move around, ratting can be moved or done in alternative ways, it's just time for ISK. If you want moon-income you have to live there! And moon-goo is an income that can be handled by fewer people, that generates a LOT of income, and that is needed to produce T2 ships and will have an impact on the ecomony of the power blocs and on EVE much more than sov will!
Leaders will fight over moons! Leaders will not fight for ratting!
CCP Fozzie - have a look at the moons, will you!
CEO Svea Rike
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6568
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 09:00:10 -
[3507] - Quote
Dun dun dunnnn
Doesn't like PL love having moons with no sov, are you sure you want to stop their goofaucet
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 09:06:39 -
[3508] - Quote
flakeys wrote: I KNOW that an Alliance is needed to keep a moon and no individual can do that , that does not mean it should not be accounted for as individual income because again an Alliance is made out of individuals nd the SRP wich is aquired through moon-goo amongst other things is payed to individuals for their individual losses.Something you seem to have a hard time grasping.
I've said it before but it REALLY is hard to understand , especially for guys from your Alliance , that the people who are FOR the changes might not live in null-sec now but that does not mean they do not have the aquired null-sec experience .DUH
I don't disagree with you that Moon Minerals are a benefit (no-one would waste hours of their life on tower shoots/saves if they weren't seeing some of the money in some way), but an issue that has to be considered is that Moon Minerals are not a Sovreignty benefit or income. You don't need to hold a single system of sov to mine moons. For years organisations have held moon outside of their sov, and indeed, quite frequently in other peoples sov. The concern people have is that the additional ball-ache factor in sov just isn't going to be worth it, and large groups might just pick up their sov and sit in NPC nullsec and hold the moons (Despite living in parts of Pure Blind, Fade and Deklein all my null-life, i've never docked in X-70... I get a feeling that might soon change). Anomoly income is shaky at best as well, since the good systems are always dominated by the same dozen people anyway, so the rest of us aren't going to give two ***** about their IHUB being reinforced again.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
857
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 09:35:56 -
[3509] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:flakeys wrote: I KNOW that an Alliance is needed to keep a moon and no individual can do that , that does not mean it should not be accounted for as individual income because again an Alliance is made out of individuals nd the SRP wich is aquired through moon-goo amongst other things is payed to individuals for their individual losses.Something you seem to have a hard time grasping.
I've said it before but it REALLY is hard to understand , especially for guys from your Alliance , that the people who are FOR the changes might not live in null-sec now but that does not mean they do not have the aquired null-sec experience .DUH
I don't disagree with you that Moon Minerals are a benefit (no-one would waste hours of their life on tower shoots/saves if they weren't seeing some of the money in some way), but an issue that has to be considered is that Moon Minerals are not a Sovreignty benefit or income. You don't need to hold a single system of sov to mine moons. For years organisations have held moon outside of their sov, and indeed, quite frequently in other peoples sov. The concern people have is that the additional ball-ache factor in sov just isn't going to be worth it, and large groups might just pick up their sov and sit in NPC nullsec and hold the moons (Despite living in parts of Pure Blind, Fade and Deklein all my null-life, i've never docked in X-70... I get a feeling that might soon change). Anomoly income is shaky at best as well, since the good systems are always dominated by the same dozen people anyway, so the rest of us aren't going to give two ***** about their IHUB being reinforced again.
Maybe people will move to npc, they're in for a rude shock though if they can't make money in sov. Cloakers, cloakers everywhere!!! |
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 09:41:23 -
[3510] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Dun dun dunnnn
Doesn't like PL love having moons with no sov, are you sure you want to stop their goofaucet
Not just PL, everyone and their mothers like that! A lot!
If CCP are looking for REAL conflict drivers, they should add the R64s into the sov-equation.
Ratting finances the majority of the single nullsec players income. But ratting only finance a fraction of the alliance incomes. There will be no fierce fights or conflicts over rattingspace - that's just silly!
R64 moon-goo finances the majority of the alliance economy and together with renting space is the foundation of the economy of the alliances. Alliances and coalitions alike fight like hell over the control of the R64 moons.
So, to generate conflicts with sov, sov has to affect ALL the major incomes of the alliances; renters and R64 moon-goo. Entosis-links will affect the renters incomes, but not the R64 moon-goo incomes.
So, make Sov have an impact on the revenues from R64 moons. It will drive conflicts!
"Badda-tish"!
CEO Svea Rike
|
|
Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
293
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 09:54:41 -
[3511] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:This? This is it? This is what we've waited several YEARS for? Are you ******* serious? Have to agree with all respect to CCP, this is terrible, fighting in ceptors with links to take Sov? ,common guys laughs.
......................................................
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1448
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 10:00:13 -
[3512] - Quote
Glorious days, this thread is a tsunami of nullbear tears.
The Tears Must Flow
|
Samuel Slade
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 10:04:28 -
[3513] - Quote
Re-purpose the fighterbombers Change fighter bombers to powerful ECM drones that can cause havoc in a large logistics wing or neutralizing drones that can be deployed onto an enemy ship anywhere on the grid enabling long range neutralizing onto slower larger ships, this should give the new roles to the super carrier. This re-purpose should see it fit well with the changes to jump range and the addition to jump fatigue. I'm not sure how many drones it should have or if they should be able to jamm capitals in siege or triage and the other ships that are immune to electronic warfare. You could also add a warfare link buff giving the fleet a tougher command ship and the newly empty high slots a new purpose if you remove the RR but i can imagine most alliances would pounce on the opportunity to being able to DD the enemy command ship off field again but with most super carrier's millions of EHP this would be a sight to see for most in a fleet with a super command ship. Changing the fighter bombers and the blueprints should make it so you don't have to make them useless objects super pilots have paid millions for and I cant wait to see what you do with the shadow fighter bomber, if you do this. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
700
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 10:19:58 -
[3514] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Glorious days, this thread is a tsunami of nullbear tears. Please do continue broadcasting loud and clear how the reason you like the proposal is out of spite, instead of enlightened interest in the future health of the game.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 10:47:20 -
[3515] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:Let SOV control the yield of tthe R64/32 moons.
CCP Fozzie has snowed in completely on nullsec ratting as the major ISK faucet.
CCP has forgotten they themselves sprinkled a LOT of REALLY valuable moons around EVE space. And they have forgotten they added some 275 new moons not too long ago (as they nerfed Technetium). In low sec, where there is no sov, every R64 is owned by a powerbloc. Every. Single. One.
How come it is like that CCP?
These R64/32 and also R16 moons are what drives conflict! Not sovereignity! These R64/32 are what the power blocks fight for! Alliances will not fight for stupid ratting space for their grunts! That's not how it works, CCP!
Make SOV control the yield of the R64/32 moons so that: - no SOV brings really crappy yield - SOV brings better yield - upgrades in iHubs can generate better yield than we have today
This would also nerf the lowsec R64/32s and make them viable to own for smaller entities, but not so important for the power blocs. Nullsec R64/32s would be much more attractive and even MORE important to get hold of AND it would give a large incentive to own SOV in the systems where the valuable moons are! It would make SOV worth fighting for!
It will generate a lot of fights over both SOV and valuable moons. And moons don't move around, ratting can be moved or done in alternative ways, it's just time for ISK. If you want moon-income you have to live there! And moon-goo is an income that can be handled by fewer people, that generates a LOT of income, and that is needed to produce T2 ships and will have an impact on the ecomony of the power blocs and on EVE much more than sov will!
Leaders will fight over moons! Leaders will not fight for ratting!
CCP Fozzie - have a look at the moons, will you! What about R64's in lowsec, how does one take sov in lowsec?
Moon mining has little to nothing to do with sov and it should really stay that way or your going to kill nulsec even more (and a lot of lowsec as well). I too would like to see high value moon wealth redistributed but as long as we have giant coalitions, that is where that wealth is going to go. The only way you could tie moon mining to sov would be to remove all R32/64 moons from lowsec and even though no lowsec alliances own them, you could be sure they would scream the house down if they were taken away. Forget moons as content drivers - It hasn't worked up till now and never really will.
- - - - - - - - - - - Best solution to income generation and ongoing pvp content for sov space; Is to make it attractive and viable to live in sov space. Idea; All unclaimed starts with a security status of 0.1, to get better returns you have to upgrade the system to truesec. An added bonus for "truesec" could be a small bonus to defensive index for the system. This could be tied to ihub via system population and ongoing activity, so as the ihub gets upgraded it lowers the sec of the system until at level 10 you end up with truesec, 0.00. To keep it interesting, a new ihub module called "trusec" (or whatever) could be introduced starting from level 1 (0.09) through to level 10 (0.00), the lower you get your truesec status the more productive the system becomes.
The truesec mechanic would need to be achievable by small groups as well as large, so each level could be triggered by activity of the static population (home system clones) over a period of time. The current "home system for 12 months" will need to be modified if CCP hope to see any changes at all in sov space. No-one wants to go and take sov somewhere if their "home system" is tied to somewhere 30 or 40 jumps away for the next 6 months.
With the introduction of something like this, EVERY sov system becomes viable and worth fighting for.
- - - - - - - - - - - - Scrap the mini game of constellation node grinds, many small groups would never be able to hold a constellation but could hold 1 or 2 systems. Grinding nodes (any nodes or sovereignty blockade units as they are known now) for up to 4 hours a day is no better than shooting structures for hours at a time. Grinding is grinding regardless of what you choose to call it and time and again it has been shown constant grinding is BORING and kills active content because it becomes - he with the biggest fleet wins.
Remove or at least reduce the 4 hour "primetime", as small groups would have major trouble here. You want small groups to stand a chance of holding sov, the amount of time it takes to defend your sov needs to be realistic.
Have a "safe system" mechanism for newly taken sov, so, for example for 7 days after sov is taken the sov itself can't be attacked but everyone living there can. This would allow small groups a window in which to upgrade the system a little without fear of actually losing sov. If another group is really intent on keeping them from holding the sovereignty, it is pure pvp that drives them out, not an Entosis module.
NB; All existing sov would be reset when the sov mechanics change - No-one would lose sov they currently have, unless they choose to but every sov system would be set to 0.1 and the alliance holding it would need to upgrade it from there.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Duffyman
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 11:02:40 -
[3516] - Quote
It's not that hard:
- Replace null sec anoms with missions -> Now a system can support hundreds of pilots and null sec powers will let go of 2/3 of their space (keeping the ones with the best moons of course) - Make the sov laser exclusive to BCs (T1) and Command Ships (T2) -> Now Sov is for those that want it and not for trolls and you give purpose to a forgotten class of ships |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1448
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 11:08:18 -
[3517] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:Glorious days, this thread is a tsunami of nullbear tears. Please do continue broadcasting loud and clear how the reason you like the proposal is out of spite, instead of enlightened interest in the future health of the game.
You sound mad. Good, when CCP does their job right, people like you always get mad, it's a good sign for the future health of the game.
But there's more to come, can't wait for the capital ship nerfs, bombers nerfs, T3 nerfs, jump freighter nerfs, plus the new delayed local system.
The Tears Must Flow
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
703
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 11:45:16 -
[3518] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:Glorious days, this thread is a tsunami of nullbear tears. Please do continue broadcasting loud and clear how the reason you like the proposal is out of spite, instead of enlightened interest in the future health of the game. You sound mad. Good, when CCP does their job right, people like you always get mad, it's a good sign for the future health of the game. But there's more to come, can't wait for the capital ship nerfs, bombers nerfs, T3 nerfs, jump freighter nerfs, plus the new delayed local system. Yes I'm mad. Did you think I was trying to hide it?
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
RogueHunteer
Perkone Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 11:46:21 -
[3519] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:Let SOV control the yield of tthe R64/32 moons.
CCP Fozzie has snowed in completely on nullsec ratting as the major ISK faucet.
CCP has forgotten they themselves sprinkled a LOT of REALLY valuable moons around EVE space. And they have forgotten they added some 275 new moons not too long ago (as they nerfed Technetium). In low sec, where there is no sov, every R64 is owned by a powerbloc. Every. Single. One.
How come it is like that CCP?
These R64/32 and also R16 moons are what drives conflict! Not sovereignity! These R64/32 are what the power blocks fight for! Alliances will not fight for stupid ratting space for their grunts! That's not how it works, CCP!
Make SOV control the yield of the R64/32 moons so that: - no SOV brings really crappy yield - SOV brings better yield - upgrades in iHubs can generate better yield than we have today
This would also nerf the lowsec R64/32s and make them viable to own for smaller entities, but not so important for the power blocs. Nullsec R64/32s would be much more attractive and even MORE important to get hold of AND it would give a large incentive to own SOV in the systems where the valuable moons are! It would make SOV worth fighting for!
It will generate a lot of fights over both SOV and valuable moons. And moons don't move around, ratting can be moved or done in alternative ways, it's just time for ISK. If you want moon-income you have to live there! And moon-goo is an income that can be handled by fewer people, that generates a LOT of income, and that is needed to produce T2 ships and will have an impact on the ecomony of the power blocs and on EVE much more than sov will!
Leaders will fight over moons! Leaders will not fight for ratting!
CCP Fozzie - have a look at the moons, will you!
Moons mining needs to be removed and bring ring mining in to the game! Goodbye passive income.... hello miners :)
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 12:07:04 -
[3520] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Forget moons as content drivers - It hasn't worked up till now and never really will.
I'm sorry, but that's not true! I have lived in nullsec for a long time, and fights over moons has been a great content-generator and still will be!
Right now lowsec alliances are trying to take R64 moons from NC. in Airdia, and NC. promptly moved their Supers there to "project force" and retake these moons.
FA has had their moons taken by the NPC nullsec-aliances GBG and EH each and every time we have fought elsewhere, and have been forced to retake these R64 moons when we staged back. THere is constant fighting over R64/32 moons.
There is no absolute need to have sov to control the valuable R64/32 moons. If CCP ties in sov-mechanics to the R64/32s in someway, THAT will generate more conflicts. The Entosis-suggestion for sov-mechanics will not generate the kind if conflict that CCP thinks. What alliance will fight over ratting-systems.....really!?
CEO Svea Rike
|
|
McDarila
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 12:07:10 -
[3521] - Quote
Quote: You sound mad. Good, when CCP does their job right, people like you always get mad, it's a good sign for the future health of the game.
But there's more to come, can't wait for the capital ship nerfs, bombers nerfs, T3 nerfs, jump freighter nerfs, plus the new delayed local system.
I got bad news for you, most null sec high skill point players have a reserve fund (mine currently 7.5 billion isk) and major block alliances have mind blowing reserves. They kill null sec 6 months of burn jita at every major trade hub and mission hub(low sec faction warfare, too. They have yet to deal with 1,000 person fleets that don't care about a fight, until we get tired of ganking. We make isk every burn Jita. Our leadership knows what happens when we get bored, its not good. This looks like a very boring patch after the first week. When this hits: time to go down to a single account, put the cap alt, hauler, cynos, miners to rest until its fixed.
In the words of our dear leader:
"We not here to ruin the game, we here to ruin your game."
Enjoy your null sec nerf; we will. |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 12:07:57 -
[3522] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:Let SOV control the yield of tthe R64/32 moons.
....
These R64/32 and also R16 moons are what drives conflict! Not sovereignity! These R64/32 are what the power blocks fight for! Alliances will not fight for stupid ratting space for their grunts! That's not how it works, CCP!
...
Make SOV control the yield of the R64/32 moons so that: - no SOV brings really crappy yield - SOV brings better yield - upgrades in iHubs can generate better yield than we have today
.....
Leaders will fight over moons! Leaders will not fight for ratting!
CCP Fozzie - have a look at the moons, will you!
Oh how quickly ye have forgotten the sins of the past. OTEC anyone?
If you for one moment think the major powerblocs wouldnt abuse such a mechanic you are sorely mistaken. The Technetium BUFF was close to one of the biggest mistakes CCP ever made in game design. It took waaay too long for that mistake to be corrected.
Alliance moongoo income definitely does not require a buff and linking it to sov levels would be a massive mistake. Ring mining would maybe be better. Should be some activity that decreases production the longer the mod is set to, and not generate millions/hour. Actually having to be/live in system should be a factor to make that kind of isk. Completely passive income is a scourge that should be removed.
I still think POS's should be involved in moongoo mining, as removing them and replacing it with ships would take away a lot of the current usage of capitals and timers. These 2 things drive conflict, and with the removal of structure grinding caps need to have a strong role in some areas going forward. |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
287
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 12:08:28 -
[3523] - Quote
flakeys wrote:
Yup , never been in null.Not like i spend over half my 10 years in the game in null-sec.And nope never been in the CFC either , nope B-R ... i never was there .....
Next time look at the players history before commenting , i AM ex CFC .My character is 6 years older then yours and has 12 times as many kills of wich the biggest chunk is null-sec kills.I have set my first feet in null-sec before BOB even became known. I KNOW that an Alliance is needed to keep a moon and no individual can do that , that does not mean it should not be accounted for as individual income because again an Alliance is made out of individuals nd the SRP wich is aquired through moon-goo amongst other things is payed to individuals for their individual losses.Something you seem to have a hard time grasping.
I've said it before but it REALLY is hard to understand , especially for guys from your Alliance , that the people who are FOR the changes might not live in null-sec now but that does not mean they do not have the aquired null-sec experience .DUH
I was already aware of everything you mentioned, but even revising your history in game does not magically turn your speculation and rhetoric into facts based on or backed by solid math work. The problem with your argument is not only you aren't providing any comment to counter a substantive fact based on solid math. You are attempting to say that somehow alliance income equals to personal income and yet, you can't really show how this is the case. (Because it isn't)
Besides, how else could I have accounted for how wrong your knowledge of life in null is? I'm an optimist, and I really wanted to avoid citing the other most likely explanation which could have explained your blatant and willful ignorance. Besides, saying that as it is (the specific condition) might end up with some of the good people here interpreting it as a personal insult towards you, and I certainly would like to avoid that by all means possible. Now tell me, would you really prefer that I'd have handled it this way and publicly embarrass you?
Or, it is just you have a personal grievance from that past, perhaps even related with your separation from CFC, and that is why you are making such dubious claims about the life in sovereign null. In either case, you have to realize that the discussion under this thread is not about you, and you should stop pursuing this personal agenda of yours. If you have anything to add with substance that is close to being factual, by all means, please comment. Otherwise, you will only be ridiculing yourself. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
706
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 12:24:11 -
[3524] - Quote
McDarila wrote:Quote: You sound mad. Good, when CCP does their job right, people like you always get mad, it's a good sign for the future health of the game.
But there's more to come, can't wait for the capital ship nerfs, bombers nerfs, T3 nerfs, jump freighter nerfs, plus the new delayed local system.
I got bad news for you, most null sec high skill point players have a reserve fund (mine currently 7.5 billion isk) and major block alliances have mind blowing reserves. They kill null sec 6 months of burn jita at every major trade hub and mission hub(low sec faction warfare, too. They have yet to deal with 1,000 person fleets that don't care about a fight, until we get tired of ganking. We make isk every burn Jita. Our leadership knows what happens when we get bored, its not good. This looks like a very boring patch after the first week. When this hits: time to go down to a single account, put the cap alt, hauler, cynos, miners to rest until its fixed. In the words of our dear leader: "We not here to ruin the game, we here to ruin your game." Enjoy your null sec nerf; we will. The invasion of highsec. It will be glorious.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
356
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 12:36:16 -
[3525] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Forget moons as content drivers - It hasn't worked up till now and never really will.
I'm sorry, but that's not true! I have lived in nullsec for a long time, and fights over moons has been a great content-generator and still will be! Right now lowsec alliances are trying to take R64 moons from NC. in Airdia, and NC. promptly moved their Supers there to "project force" and retake these moons. FA has had their moons taken by the NPC nullsec-aliances GBG and EH each and every time we have fought elsewhere, and have been forced to retake these R64 moons when we staged back. THere is constant fighting over R64/32 moons. There is no absolute need to have sov to control the valuable R64/32 moons. If CCP ties in sov-mechanics to the R64/32s in someway, THAT will generate more conflicts. The Entosis-suggestion for sov-mechanics will not generate the kind if conflict that CCP thinks. What alliance will fight over ratting-systems.....really!? Sorry your right, 2 or 3 large alliances are fighting over control of a few moons - Is that real content or is it a few localized fights? Good moons will become more valuable as renter networks fall apart, so for a while they will create content for the large groups who want them, until the status quo is found. As more alliances give up on nulsec and make new homes in lowsec those few moons will only increase in value as more vie for the income but it is still only engaging for short periods for a few.
Tying moons in sov space to sov is so unbalanced it cries out for change even before it is put in place. You can't have different criteria to hold moons for different regions of space. Do that you may as well put R64's in Empire.
I've lived in nul a long time and yes there is the odd fight over a moon, generally one not close to the alliances main holdings and yes it does create content, for a few for a while. Then things just settle back to the boring we have all become accustomed to.
Entosis - I agree it is grinding with a new name that requires even less players and player activity to achieve major change. The same with constellation node shoots - Boring repetitive grinding.
I thought the whole idea behind sov changes was to remove the "grind" aspect, not turn it into mini games for less players.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 12:44:02 -
[3526] - Quote
What to do about moons that are in npc controlled space is simple, and there is a precedent for it. Make them subject to a hefty NPC tax, as was done with PI. 25% should do it. Give a corresponding boost to moon yield in sov space at the top end of the indexes when the iHub has the appropriate upgrade, while making sov a requirement for anchoring a moon miner in conquerable space.
It's the additional incentive to move out to null and conquer some space that people have been asking for, while adding another driver for conflict over sov.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
356
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 12:50:35 -
[3527] - Quote
davet517 wrote:What to do about moons that are in npc controlled space is simple, and there is a precedent for it. Make them subject to a hefty NPC tax, as was done with PI. 25% should do it. Give a corresponding boost to moon yield in sov space at the top end of the indexes when the iHub has the appropriate upgrade, while making sov a requirement for anchoring a moon miner in conquerable space.
It's the additional incentive to move out to null and conquer some space that people have been asking for, while adding another driver for conflict over sov.
What you would end up with, is large alliances still holding all the valuable moons and simply having 1,000 or 2,000 members living in each mooned system. So yes, content and conflict, for about a month.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 13:03:31 -
[3528] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: What you would end up with, is large alliances still holding all the valuable moons and simply having 1,000 or 2,000 members living in each mooned system. So yes, content and conflict, for about a month.
Tax lowsec moons, Good moons lose value but are still valuable, lower level moons become useless as many aren't all that profitable now until reactions are done and often there isn't 25% profit in them.
I think you're misreading the value of these moons. Their value is that they're passive. As a power block, you can count on them month in month out while hardly ever having to defend them as long as you have the "nuclear deterrent" of a super-cap blob. They generate a lot of income, but not enough to justify the manpower that it would take to actively defend as many as the power blocs own today.
Yes, people who are used to mining moons in low-sec would probably have to move to null if they wanted to continue doing that. CCP might want to take a look at how moons are distributed, with some attention to placing valuable moons in systems with less desirable truesec, to provide additional incentive for conquering those systems.
|
RogueHunteer
Perkone Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 13:58:05 -
[3529] - Quote
STOP FAILING - AS THEIR ARE STILL SOME STUFF WE STILL WOULD LIKE TO SEE!
THE SOV CHANGES ARE GOOD!
TCU NEEDS A BIT MORE TO FIGHT FOR HERE - WHY CAN'T WE LINK LOCAL TO IT FOR OWNERS ONLY! MAKE THE ATTACKERS WORK BIT HARDER WITH NO LOCAL. AND MAKE A LOCAL FREE-PORT SYSTEM.
CLAM OWNERS SEE LOCAL AND SET BLUES!
BRING ****RING MINING****** IN TOO THE GAME PLEASE THANKS END PASSIVE INCOME! |
Lord Zeuus
Intent Unspecified Fatal Ascension
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 14:18:58 -
[3530] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:After reading Fozzie's comments on EVE Down Under, it's become clear to me that he's an absolute ****** who shouldn't be anywhere near game design.
He wants supers to be some kind of force multiplier giving some type of bonuses, instead of damage ships. He wants delayed local in nullsec. He wants to remove fleet warp. He wants to nerf combat probing. And he thinks nullsec has enough incentives as it is.
I'm starting to get seriously pissed off at CCP. Way to completely flip the bird to some of your most loyal subscribers.
This post couldn't be more accurate. I actually pay cash for my accounts and will probably find something else to do if the above changes are implemented.
The game is already fun or we would have the numbers of people playing. Jump Fatigue has made it much less enjoyable, now this? It's painfully obvious CCP can't fix the lag issues so more workarounds to come. There are so many other areas of EVE that could be fixed, it's a shame this is their focus. |
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 14:29:51 -
[3531] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:After reading Fozzie's comments on EVE Down Under, it's become clear to me that he's an absolute ****** who shouldn't be anywhere near game design.
He wants supers to be some kind of force multiplier giving some type of bonuses, instead of damage ships. He wants delayed local in nullsec. He wants to remove fleet warp. He wants to nerf combat probing. And he thinks nullsec has enough incentives as it is.
I'm starting to get seriously pissed off at CCP. Way to completely flip the bird to some of your most loyal subscribers. I think it is almost everyone, very few people will want Null SOV when NPC Null, Worm Holes, even Low Sec are probably more desireableDracvlad wrote:... most of my contacts want to own a system or two to say that they have done it, though I have done that, but in the main to have small fun fleet fights. Low Sec's role that it is failing to fulfil.Tau Phoenix wrote:Just a view on the 'Freeport' mechanic. If a system or constellation is under attack and there is only one station in that area it would be reasonable to assume that both the attackers and defenders will stage out of that freeport station.... ... or the one next door but besides the lag, the chaos with quick anchoring, timing and so forth might be interesting.Aralyn Cormallen wrote:The concern people have is that the additional ball-ache factor in sov just isn't going to be worth it, and large groups might just pick up their sov and sit in NPC nullsec and hold the moons For emphasis, this is the most frequent plan of current coalitions.
P.S. I love jump fatigue, hope they consider making team required Null Sec anomolies and allow us to consolodate our space so more alliances can fit out here with us. I also hope they announce indy and Black Ops fatigue bonuses will be reduced within three months
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 14:32:39 -
[3532] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:After reading Fozzie's comments on EVE Down Under, it's become clear to me that he's an absolute ****** who shouldn't be anywhere near game design.
He wants supers to be some kind of force multiplier giving some type of bonuses, instead of damage ships. He wants delayed local in nullsec. He wants to remove fleet warp. He wants to nerf combat probing. And he thinks nullsec has enough incentives as it is.
I'm starting to get seriously pissed off at CCP. Way to completely flip the bird to some of your most loyal subscribers.
Seriously? Ah well, all of these changes should ramp up FW and WH action quite a bit. I wish Fozzie would go back to just commenting ATs, that's what he's good at. Pick any random person of the street and put him/her in game design, that would probably have more positive effects on 0.0 than this rubbish. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 14:36:49 -
[3533] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
I earn more than this running level 4 missions in my trusty Velator armed with civilian mining lasers !
Jeez, I sure do feel sorry for all you null-sec paupers.
Again, just like the high-sec salvager, you are attempting to troll, and doing it very poorly at that. Now, I'll just repeat what I've said before regarding high-sec individual PvE income vs. null-sec individual PvE income. Through choosing the faction he runs missions for (a faction with a high LP to ISK conversion), a high-sec L4 missioner, flying a T1 battleship with rather mediocre skills is able to make almost two times more ISK per hour over a highly trained Ishtar pilot in null space anomalies killing rats. Let's not also forget that if he is rather aware and informed, the high-sec pilot has almost no risks that he gets to be burdened with, and one cannot say the same about a pilot ratting in null. Low-sec is probably the craziest, an individual flying a T2 frigate at FW can make up to 400 million ISK per hour, which is EIGHT times what the Ishtar pilot makes in null. Again, because he is flying a stealth bomber or a cloaky T3, the risk he will be facing is extremely low. Wormholes? Well, they are even worse. We are talking billions per hour when it comes to PvE activities of a well established organization. They face increased risks over low-sec and high-sec, but they also are competent enough to work the wormhole mechanics, so that their system would be on virtual lockdown when they are doing PvE. Can anyone in their right mind claim that null individual income is fair and balanced vis-a-vis other types of space? Are the trolls posting able to dispute any of what I've been citing?
In my experience hi sec income is roughly comparable to null sec income. Variations can rise from pilot risk aversion, particular skill levels, tactics used and what is measured.
Before great anomaly nerf dialing most of null sec significantly down and a little boost a bit later grinding anoms in sec -0.05 system with upgrades with t2 fit T1 BS or carrier vs blitzing L4's in hi sec in moderately faction pimped pirate BS (low enough module value to remain unprofitable to suicide back then) being in null sec was 15% better isk/h wise, after anomaly nerf it was about 10% worse after the little boost it ended up roughly equal. Margin of error (statistically) in my spreadsheet is (was even, as I have not done the numbers over the last year) approx 5% as I did not bother generating very much samples.
But that is only one aspect, active grind for isk. Overall I think the isk/h balance is more or less fine. EVE is not a game of linear progression and one region of space should not be obviously better than every other region of space as that would limit the "reasonable" number of playstyles.
If one is in null purely for isk/h it is one particular playstyle. I believe, however, that most of people are in null for different reasons than isk/h. similarly some people are in low sec purely for isk/h or hi sec purely for isk/h as particular pilots playstyle generates highest isk/h in that area for him and that what he tries to maximise. Other people do not care about isk/h and try to maximise something else, be it then fun per hour, killmails per hour, K/D ratio, isk per effort or click .. etc.
So whining that isk/h in null sucks for particular playstyle is not particularly productive. If you can make more isk/h somewhere else and you care so much about isk/h go for it instead of whining that the particular area is not the most optimal place for your particular play-style.
Risk (in the the sense of probability of loss x cost of the loss) vs reward (isk/h; isk/click; isk/effort, kills per hour, etc) is not a fixed general number applying for all pilots but is instead a highly personal variable to be optimized for particular play-style and goals in game.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 14:40:28 -
[3534] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: What you would end up with, is large alliances still holding all the valuable moons and simply having 1,000 or 2,000 members living in each mooned system.
Yes, that is what will be the case after Entosis-EVE. Status quoe in nullsec considering control over the passive incomes. Small-scale fights over sov, because sov does not have any real value for the alliances.
In Fountain alone, there are 73 R64 moons spread out over ~45 systems *). No alliance would be able to keep 1,000s of people in all those moon-systems all the time! So there would be possibilities to attack the sov of those systems to weaken alliances that try to control them.
Those 73 moons can also be maintained by some handfuls of IRL people, using JFs, Rorquals and cynoalts. There is no requirement to own sov to control these moons, of course it is convenient with JBs, cyno generators etc, but not necessary. So, large alliances will keep control over these assets, even after Entosis-EVE, since they can and since sov is not required to keep control of the R64 moons.
The R64 moon-goo churned out of those 73 R64 moons have a raw market value of 285 B ISK every month (based on todays sell-values in Jita). POS fuel for 73 large POSes would be in the vicinity of 30 B ISK / month if you have them in sov-systems, and the transport jump fuel much much less. So lets say there is a minimum net income from the Fountain R64 moons of around 250 B ISK/month. Without sov the cost for the POSes would increase to around 40 B, so net incomes would be 240 B ISK. Ouch! That hurts the wallets of the alliances, right ?! (irony).
So, a couple of handful of people ensure that these R64 POSes generates a net income of 240-250 B ISK per month to the alliances that control them. Nice passive incomes!
To generate THAT kind of income to an alliance every month by ratting would require several hundreds of ratters running scores of Forsaken Hubs every month and a high ratting tax! Even if ratting is done a lot in nullsec, the ratting-ISK does not primarily end up in the pockets of the alliances. And thus, alliances are not affected so much by ratting, and thus they will not fight huge wars and never-ending conflicts for ratting-space. ANd incomes generated by some handfuls of people are more easy, stable and effort-less to control than incomes that require hundreds, if not thousands of people.
CCP wants to generate conflicts and they think that ratting in nullsec is the "driver" for conflicts. I think they are severly misstaken! CCP should tie in the R64 moons in the sov-equation, because they represent the least-effort and largest income (second to renting probably) for the power blocs. THEN we will have conflicts over sov worth the name!
Sgt Ocker wrote: So yes, content and conflict, for about a month.
Oh, I think it would be more than a month of conflicts if R64/32 moons are tied to sov...
*) Stats collected from Marlona Skyes complete mapping of the moons in Fountain
CEO Svea Rike
|
Drogo Drogos
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 14:55:22 -
[3535] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:Glorious days, this thread is a tsunami of nullbear tears. Please do continue broadcasting loud and clear how the reason you like the proposal is out of spite, instead of enlightened interest in the future health of the game. You sound mad. Good, when CCP does their job right, people like you always get mad, it's a good sign for the future health of the game. But there's more to come, can't wait for the capital ship nerfs, bombers nerfs, T3 nerfs, jump freighter nerfs, plus the new delayed local system. Yes I'm mad. Did you think I was trying to hide it?
What he and CCP might miss is the thousands of people who are going to unsub.
Super pilots /unsub Multiple nullsec accounts /unsub Nullbear hardcore ratters ( i know guys who own up to 25 active accounts to rat ) /unsub
I have 4 accounts active and will close 3 of those and pay for the remaining one in cash instead of plex.
The question remaining is: is this change going to attract new players into eve and will these players apply to nullsec alliance's ? It sounds more that these changes are going to become a chore and a second job instead of a exciting way to generate fights and contend.
Already looking forward to see the many abusers of Entosis links day in day out waisting my time to reship undock and then they hide or run away and give no fights or action.
And no local will sure as hell drive out the faint of hearth back to Hisec as the isk made in Nullsec cannot be compared to Wormholes....what dafuq is CCP thinking lol.
But Fozzie knows best as he also said there is nothing wrong with battleships and bombers :P |
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 14:56:12 -
[3536] - Quote
CCP,
Let alliances build actual empires...
Use current incursion system to let empires 'claim' space as their own.
Remove moon mining completely. Put moon goo in unstable "Rogue Dwarf Moons" located in scannable sites or thrown in with asteroid and ice sites. "Rogue Dwarf Moons" contain a good mix of stuff so no alliance can lock-up moons like they do now and F* the rest. Indices improve number/quality of moons, but makes it so alliance has to actively mine the goods.
Capital Exhumer or 50km "Moon Strip Miners" for dreadnaughts -either way, you get a veldnaught of some kind and reason for rorquals to see wider use. Hell, reminds me of the days long ago when I was flying a bestower as a newbie in Black Plague with Satan and saw the entire alliance out in Stain with a massive 40 mining apocs and assorted mining cruisers with people escorting us haulers.
Planetary Interaction... add population and their needs. happy population, some indices climb, unhappy and they drop. Needs can be met though bringing various trade goods to PI hubs.
Alliances able to hire randomly generated agents or just 'bounty office' where leveled missions are posted to protect your population/space from encroaching pirate forces.
Player kills and losses affect colonization -you keep your losses low and population rates swell, lose thousands of ships and population rates slow (but not stop or someone like Goons and BNI would never see colonists except on market).
Planetary Interaction Bonuses... happy populations provide bonuses to the commodities in addition to what is normally at the customs offices.
no reason to scrap a pvp based conquest system for KOTH.
maybe give low-sec more of these rogue dwarf moons in roid sites and belts than null... knowing you can get some of the best moon-goo there and you'll see low-sec get active. |
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 15:03:08 -
[3537] - Quote
Drogo Drogos wrote: Super pilots /unsub Multiple nullsec accounts /unsub Nullbear hardcore ratters ( i know guys who own up to 25 active accounts to rat ) /unsub
Maybe CCP just wants to downsize on alts and us bitter 0.0 vets. Give some more realistic "account" numbers when logging with way less alts... |
Drogo Drogos
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 15:07:19 -
[3538] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Drogo Drogos wrote: Super pilots /unsub Multiple nullsec accounts /unsub Nullbear hardcore ratters ( i know guys who own up to 25 active accounts to rat ) /unsub
Maybe CCP just wants to downsize on alts and us bitter 0.0 vets. Give some more realistic "account" numbers when logging with way less alts...
Meh whatever their intention is i hope they know what they are doing before they can fire half of Reykjavik...
Was looking at The Metashow last night with The Mittani / PGL / Laz / Nys and the idea's they had were beyond epic. That would make Eve Online so exciting and generate so much contend.
Yet i knew this would take them years and years to implement.... |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
858
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 15:13:37 -
[3539] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Drogo Drogos wrote: Super pilots /unsub Multiple nullsec accounts /unsub Nullbear hardcore ratters ( i know guys who own up to 25 active accounts to rat ) /unsub
Maybe CCP just wants to downsize on alts and us bitter 0.0 vets. Give some more realistic "account" numbers when logging with way less alts...
This sounds like a great way to minimize profitability.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Commentus Nolen
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 15:14:32 -
[3540] - Quote
Quote:Was looking at The Metashow last night.
Please link. |
|
Omgitsbears
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 15:29:38 -
[3541] - Quote
I'm glad to see how vocal people are against the changes to sov, and local delay. Both are terrible ideas that will hurt Eve-Online. This game doesn't need huge sweeping changes, if it wasn't fun to play then it wouldn't have the consistent player numbers it does have. Eve-Online is over 10 years old, at this point it just needs minor tweaks and more content. Not these gigantic sweeping changes that redefine the game. |
AfroFlipp Mabata
F-I-N-K PROPERTY Northern Associates.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 15:57:06 -
[3542] - Quote
Can you compress tears? I am running out of room! |
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:16:23 -
[3543] - Quote
AfroFlipp Mabata wrote:Can you compress tears? I am running out of room!
Says the renter? |
Roofdog2
Penn Industries
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:21:09 -
[3544] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:AfroFlipp Mabata wrote:Can you compress tears? I am running out of room! Says the renter?
whaz wrong with being a renter?
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:23:00 -
[3545] - Quote
Dominion, with its super-cap buffs could be called the "Death from Above" expansion. It sparked a super-cap arms race, and polar super-powers. Now, here's your "Death from Below" expansion, so that those super-powers can die deaths of a thousand cuts, and ownership of space pixels becomes accessible again.
These mechanics enable that, but they don't require it. Players will actually have to seize the opportunity. The psychology on display in this thread suggests that what might happen is - nothing, because rank and file players believe that nothing can overturn the big bloc's lock on power. As long as most players believe that, they'll continue belonging to one of the big blocs.
You'll know that the big blocs are dying a "Death from Below" if they start to bleed numbers, and participation. They'll have to, in order for newcomers to be able to stake a claim. Mechanics alone won't do that. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2843
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:30:33 -
[3546] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote: CCP wants to generate conflicts and they think that ratting in nullsec is the "driver" for conflicts. I think they are severly misstaken! CCP should tie in the R64 moons in the sov-equation, because they represent the least-effort and largest income (second to renting probably) for the power blocs. THEN we will have conflicts over sov worth the name!
One would think that fights over these moons and other static structures would be the source of huge fleet battles in the future...
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
DragonZer0
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:55:06 -
[3547] - Quote
I just got through listening to your chat with the members of the csm. Now your adding carriers & supers to some system boneus similar to wspace effects. Also hinting at removal of local from . If you planning on removing local/delay then remove ceptors bubble immunity and combat recon dscan and give t2 resist instead. I believe that a fair trade for that action.
As for sov in general the light fadeing fast. |
Vicar2008
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
128
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:57:25 -
[3548] - Quote
CCP Offices Monday morning.........
CCP Seagull: So.... Damage Control Jove Edition....
Would like to a be fly on the wall for this one. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
314
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:13:03 -
[3549] - Quote
AfroFlipp Mabata wrote:Can you compress tears? I am running out of room! New use for the rorqual? |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2736
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:17:18 -
[3550] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:It's not that hard: - Replace null sec anoms with missions -> Now a system can support hundreds of pilots and null sec powers will let go of 2/3 of their space (keeping the ones with the best moons of course)
- Make the sov laser exclusive to BCs (T1) and Command Ships (T2) -> Now Sov is for those that want it and not for trolls and you give purpose to a forgotten class of ships edit: oh and tie the prime time window to usage -> http://www.themittani.com/features/prime-time-variable-contest-windows That way everyone can have a part and even small alliances have a better chance of keeping their space. Big alliances with unused space have full 23 hour vulnerability windows
The bolded part would indeed make a lot more sense with the current changes coming.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
|
Baden Luskan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:34:48 -
[3551] - Quote
I had some suggestions to add to all of this:
Owning sov should give bonuses to corporations that actually own sov. An example would be an increase in moon goo production if you are the owner of the system the moon is in.
Instead of a 4 hour window that a structures are vulnerable to attack, there should be a 6 hour window that the structures are safe. Cover the time players are on the least for an alliance//corporation instead of a 4-hour window everyone is expected to be on for.
During the Freeport Station period, any entity that wants to compete for ownership at the end of Freeport mode should have to dock inside the station and "sign up" to be eligible for the battle to take the station.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
295
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:38:43 -
[3552] - Quote
My big thing is the potential for griefing that we've gone a dozen rounds on - if that's addressed, then good.
But I have to say, after listening to some of PGL's ideas (and through him, Grath's) for how this can be made to work, in conjunction w/xttz's thoughts on the index-based Prime Time, there's a lot of potential here.
Delayed local in nullsec - yes, this would be a major PITA... unless there's an IHUB upgrade to bring Local performance up to the level of its performance in Empire.
Deployable 'Mobile Subspace Inhibitors', like the Mobile Cyno Inhibitor, that can let you counter that upgrade on a grid.
An IHUB upgrade that allows for the disruption of cloaking devices (either all of them, or just those owned by people who aren't part of the sov-holding alliance) - maybe by positioning 'Scanning Nodes' around the system.
That could then even be hackable via either a hacking module (which, apparently, the entosis link was originally going to be) or a Link, to be used by hostiles if left unprotected.
I think there's a lot of potential here if the 'why do people hold space?' question is addressed - and addressed beyond simply 'because they make X ISK'. ISK is nonsense. ISK can be made anywhere in the game. If I was only about the ISK, I'd go back to w-space. Lawless space is NPC null. Sov null is not lawless - the sovholder is the law. Sov null is empire-building. JB networks are Railroad Tycoon. The big fleets, the big fights, those are my part of the game - running the logi for a massive multi-fleet subcap encounter is just one of the most enjoyable things I've encountered in the game. Supercapitals Online is boring as hell, and everyone knows it - especially the bloc-level FCs on both sides of the current cold war.
Here's how the basic framework needs to work:
You don't need to give individual pilots reasons to hold sov. Individual pilots don't hold sov.
Give alliances reasons to hold sov - they'll take care of their pilots. Make holding sov one of the ways they can do that - give the alliances ways to not just make the space more profitable, but better to live in, ways to make the space desirable to live in, not just someplace to afk-rat. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
295
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:42:01 -
[3553] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:AfroFlipp Mabata wrote:Can you compress tears? I am running out of room! New use for the rorqual?
Actually, Grath apparently had a really good idea for a rorqual repurpose - actually make it a capital ship used for mining. Give it another use with its deployment module where the ship absolutely devours asteroids. It would mean there's a reason for it to be on-grid in the asteroid field, give it a use in really helping w/the industry index (which helps w/system defense), and (much like mining operations in w-space) give a reason for pilots to be online arrayed around the rorqual and system in a defensive picket / CAP array. |
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:52:38 -
[3554] - Quote
I have to say if anyone is going to kill eve off its ccp fozzie. Completely clueless. Sorry. |
Josef Djugashvilis
2911
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 18:23:38 -
[3555] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:I have to say if anyone is going to kill eve off its ccp fozzie. Completely clueless. Sorry.
I doubt CCP Foggie works alone, it is probably a team effort for good or bad.
This is not a signature.
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
288
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 18:26:53 -
[3556] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Drogo Drogos wrote: Super pilots /unsub Multiple nullsec accounts /unsub Nullbear hardcore ratters ( i know guys who own up to 25 active accounts to rat ) /unsub
Maybe CCP just wants to downsize on alts and us bitter 0.0 vets. Give some more realistic "account" numbers when logging with way less alts...
CCP only wants to turn profits and make money. It's not rocket science. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 18:35:18 -
[3557] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:I have to say if anyone is going to kill eve off its ccp fozzie. Completely clueless. Sorry.
Now if someone could just compare him to ****** this thread could be over. I think this has been said about every single dev who introduced changes that are perceived to be a threat to the status quo. I hope that at least some folks recognize that fozzie is just the messenger here. I seriously doubt that fozzie was sent off to "figure out how to fix nullsec" on his own. He's announcing these changes, and explaining as best he can the thinking behind them. That doesn't mean that all of that thinking is his alone.
CCP has something that none of the rest of us have. Data. They can see how much isk is flowing, and into whose wallets its flowing. They have hard data on who is fighting, and who is avoiding meaningful fights. They're probably not too impressed with a gang-bang going on in Catch while most of the "blue donut", and the passive isk that flows with it, is safer than empire.
Predictably the apex stakeholders in the game right now don't want to see the status quo threatened. Their surrogates will be out in force lobbying against anything that might threaten the "New Eve Order". If those folks liked these changes, it'd be a pretty good indication that they were worthless.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
820
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 18:49:09 -
[3558] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Predictably the apex stakeholders in the game right now don't want to see the status quo threatened. Their surrogates will be out in force lobbying against anything that might threaten the "New Eve Order". If those folks liked these changes, it'd be a pretty good indication that they were worthless.
Frankly this is a ridiculious standpoint. The "apex stakeholders" have been lobbying for literally years to improve nullsec, mostly in a way that wouldn't benefit ourselves. We lobbied about Technetium when we sat on the largest supply and were the one most likely to lose out, we've lobbied for the hammering of the Supercap "apex force"; us, the winners of the largest Supercapital brawl in the game, and therefore yet again, the one with most to lose. And it was us who first spoke of occupancy sov. We want the game rebalanced to address the things wrong with the current system (which is why, if you paid the slightest attention, we have not opposed the principle, just the utterly ******** loopholes in it).
Quite frankly, every time someone pipes up "the indication its good is because you oppose it" frankly only displays your own bias, that you have no intrest in a balanced system, you just want the guys on the top knocked off their perches, and to hell with what that does to the game.
Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us.
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2911
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 18:56:45 -
[3559] - Quote
[quote=lilol' me]I have to say if anyone is going to kill eve off its ccp fozzie. Completely clueless. Sorry.[/quote
I thought CCP Greyscale was responsible for killing the game?
This is not a signature.
|
Grytok
KL0NKRIEGER
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:12:54 -
[3560] - Quote
I fully endorse all the supposed changes to sov and supercapitals made by CCP during the last week.
This is exactly what I wanted to see for aslong as I can remember playing this game - allmost 10 years.
I'm finally looking forward to join a 0.0-corp again with these new sov-mechanics. |
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:18:37 -
[3561] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Frankly this is a ridiculious standpoint. The "apex stakeholders" have been lobbying for literally years to improve nullsec, mostly in a way that wouldn't benefit ourselves. We lobbied about Technetium when we sat on the largest supply and were the one most likely to lose out, we've lobbied for the hammering of the Supercap "apex force"; us, the winners of the largest Supercapital brawl in the game, and therefore yet again, the one with most to lose. And it was us who first spoke of occupancy sov. We want the game rebalanced to address the things wrong with the current system (which is why, if you paid the slightest attention, we have not opposed the principle, just the utterly ******** loopholes in it).
And yet, look at the map. Stasis through mutually assured destruction. The changes that you are talking about did not change the status quo, and aren't likely to do so.
Quote: Quite frankly, every time someone pipes up "the indication its good is because you oppose it" frankly only displays your own bias, that you have no intrest in a balanced system, you just want the guys on the top knocked off their perches, and to hell with what that does to the game.
My bias is against stasis. In the world, order and stability is good. In a game, it's death. Eve has been around a long time now, especially for an MMO that is PvP based. Games like that usually succumb to "mudflation" eventually. Right now, you could fit the people who actually control the direction of 0.0 in a minivan, and half of those seldom if ever actually play the game. They just own the game.
From CCPs perspective, they have to look at hard data. Participation which grew for years, is falling now, post "blue donut". They need to do something, and that something needs to be radical enough that it causes the big power blocs to bleed numbers to smaller, more nimble entities who engage in meaningful fights more often.
Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us.
I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it.
|
Drogo Drogos
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:25:05 -
[3562] - Quote
Quick recap of the metashow and the toughts / idea's given by The Mittani / PGL / Lazerus Telraven / Nystrik
Sov warfare:
playerbuild module in space: "Warning Intel sensor" who gives a warning when neutrals enter your system - can be hacked and shut down by warping to it and hacking it shutting it down across a whole constellation.
playerbuild module in space: "Local intell sensor", shows who is in local just like now. can be hacked and shutdown by hacking it disables it across a whole constellation.
playerbuild module in space: "Status Effect module" This module can set to an effect to give positive or negative effects for fleets entering your sov, this forces enemy to fight your style and your doctrines with buffs, failure to fight in the ships the sov holder enforces gives your fleet a great disadvantage as in wormholes.
Smaller entitys can now force attackers to weird ship doctrines were the defender has trained for and are far more expirienced in then the attackers.
Capital ship Rorqual - the devour of rocks ( grath's idea ) The Rorqual can now swallow up rocks in siege mode. This vessel needs protection from pvp pilots and gives a better purpose then letting it rot in a POS.
Many more ideas were given in The Metashow that were outright awesome and would make eve a much better mmo.
I wished CCP would have seen it and have a suprise for us in June that most of that stuff would be implemented.
|
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:35:00 -
[3563] - Quote
I bet if they eliminated the white noise from highsec scrubs this thread would drop to 50 pages |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:49:35 -
[3564] - Quote
Princess Cherista wrote:I bet if they eliminated the white noise from highsec scrubs this thread would drop to 50 pages
"I've found your sleazebag.
She is at Jita IV - Moon 4 - Caldari Navy Assembly Plant station in the Jita system, Kimotoro constellation of The Forge region."
Iroooooony |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10140
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:51:11 -
[3565] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:After reading Fozzie's comments on EVE Down Under, *snip* Abuse of CCP employees will not be tolerated. ~ ISD Decoy
He wants supers to be some kind of force multiplier giving some type of bonuses, instead of damage ships. He wants delayed local in nullsec. He wants to remove fleet warp. He wants to nerf combat probing. And he thinks nullsec has enough incentives as it is.
I'm starting to get seriously pissed off at CCP. Way to completely flip the bird to some of your most loyal subscribers.
We shouldn't be surprised that a company is somewhat out of touch lol, the problem I keep having is seeing the same kind of thinking employed at a situation and yet expecting a different result. That smacks more of emotional thinking and pride than it does of evidence based thinking. Bottom line, CCPs assumptions are the things that are faulty here not the system(s) they want to put in place.
At this point all I feel that can be done is let them screw it up and hammer the point home to them about how it doesn't work (and was never going to work in the 1st place). Of course when yoo do that you end up linking a 4 year old blog all the time that perfectly reflect the flaws in current thinking only to have it ignored
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6569
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:56:47 -
[3566] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us. I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it. As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way
ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 20:14:53 -
[3567] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:davet517 wrote:Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us. I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it. As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess
I think there is no issue with coalitions like yours still existing, I personally would hate to see you guys fall as you bring in so much content, but what is needed is a vibrant small alliance battlefield, and please don't say low sec...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Duffyman
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 20:35:55 -
[3568] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:davet517 wrote:Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us. I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it. As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess I think there is no issue with coalitions like yours still existing, I personally would hate to see you guys fall as you bring in so much content, but what is needed is a vibrant small alliance battlefield, and please don't say low sec...
Never forget Malcanis Law:
"Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
Obviously if these changes go ahead as proposed, it'll be the current powers that will abuse it to hell. You'll see... |
Zakks
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 21:02:14 -
[3569] - Quote
As a newer player (2months), I am ready to quit after my sub ends this month. There is no place for, how you say, 'scrubs' in this game. I have never seen such a sense of entitlement by a group of veteran players! Having read some of this topic has done nothing to change my thoughts. This game will die, because of your status quo thinking, unless the game developers flip you the bird and shake things up. I mean really change it big time. But you will cry and moan about it, and then try and destroy it for everyone. Because you can.
So come and wreck my game, if that what gets your jollies. You really should be ashamed. |
Vicar2008
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
128
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 21:14:03 -
[3570] - Quote
Zakks wrote:As a newer player (2months), I am ready to quit after my sub ends this month. There is no place for, how you say, 'scrubs' in this game. I have never seen such a sense of entitlement by a group of veteran players! Having read some of this topic has done nothing to change my thoughts. This game will die, because of your status quo thinking, unless the game developers flip you the bird and shake things up. I mean really change it big time. But you will cry and moan about it, and then try and destroy it for everyone. Because you can.
So come and wreck my game, if that what gets your jollies. You really should be ashamed.
When you have players 5 to 11 years vested into a game, most would point yourself to groups like Brave Newbies or EVE Uni to learn and enjoy the game, so when a thing you love is being (in my opinion) being screwed with in a bad way, older players have to have a say also. Game is not for you, no probs move on, some off us have a harder time letting go though. |
|
Nick Bete
The Scope Gallente Federation
307
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 21:23:58 -
[3571] - Quote
Zakks wrote:As a newer player (2months), I am ready to quit after my sub ends this month. There is no place for, how you say, 'scrubs' in this game. I have never seen such a sense of entitlement by a group of veteran players! Having read some of this topic has done nothing to change my thoughts. This game will die, because of your status quo thinking, unless the game developers flip you the bird and shake things up. I mean really change it big time. But you will cry and moan about it, and then try and destroy it for everyone. Because you can.
So come and wreck my game, if that what gets your jollies. You really should be ashamed.
You're not kidding about the entitlement. From what I'm seeing I think CCP agrees and will make tweaks to the proposed changes but will move forward with the major themes.
|
Lupe Meza
Hedion University Amarr Empire
89
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 21:38:22 -
[3572] - Quote
Zakks wrote:As a newer player (2months), I am ready to quit after my sub ends this month. There is no place for, how you say, 'scrubs' in this game. I have never seen such a sense of entitlement by a group of veteran players! Having read some of this topic has done nothing to change my thoughts. This game will die, because of your status quo thinking, unless the game developers flip you the bird and shake things up. I mean really change it big time. But you will cry and moan about it, and then try and destroy it for everyone. Because you can.
So come and wreck my game, if that what gets your jollies. You really should be ashamed.
I wouldn't take all the bluster too seriously. It is just the usual propaganda. Whenever vets say "think of the new players" just automatically roll your eyes. "Who wants to live in null"? "Who even wants sov now". "We'll destroy high sec". Yadda yadda.
CCP is clearly striving to make a product that is inclusive and not merely a playground for 10 year players or mega coalitions; but one for people that want to play a sandbox game like this but can't devote 8 hours a day to a video game because they have no lif....er, I mean are super successful IRL and have oodles of cash and free time on hand so playing from their yachts all day is no problem.
Any good MMO that is around a while should always remember the people that put them in the position they are in and stuck with them. But never to the point where it becomes catering to self serving rhetoric and entitlement that is to the detriment of the product. Maybe take a look in a year or so and see how the landscape and culture shifts if at all. I'd encourage you to give it another shot though. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
860
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 21:59:15 -
[3573] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:davet517 wrote:Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us. I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it. As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess I think there is no issue with coalitions like yours still existing, I personally would hate to see you guys fall as you bring in so much content, but what is needed is a vibrant small alliance battlefield, and please don't say low sec... Never forget Malcanis Law: "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players." Obviously if these changes go ahead as proposed, it'll be the current powers that will abuse it to hell. You'll see...
Maybe it's not for newbies......
Maybe they just want to put mega coalitions to the sword.
Who knows the end game? |
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
368
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 22:15:16 -
[3574] - Quote
Wall of text to follow: TLDR SOV changes are bad; there are simpler approaches that are less disruptive that will achieve similar results.
I recognize that now that its been posted CCP is likely hell bent on these "sov" changes no matter what the consequences. Nonetheless, I thought I would throw out my two cents - personally I cant see how these "sov" changes are a good idea for several reasons:
(1) I get that ccp wants to promote small gang fights, but historically its the big fights and unusual events such as the guiding hand event and b-r5rb that have brought in new players. For me, it was the reporting of the guiding hand event that lead me to give eve a try - not that I have ever done any of that stuff personally, but it was the freedom of game play represented by the incident that attracted me to the game. As for B-r5rb, people like to gripe about big fights, but people rushed to that fight because they wanted to be part of something; people get the impression that these big fights have meaning and influence the course of events in eve, and that "meaning" gets expressed to folk who have not tried the game, which in turn draws them to the game. Now, in my opinion, no one has ever been drawn into eve because of some frig fight in the back end ass of no where. It just seems to me that rather then embracing its strengths and unique attractions, ccp is just throwing them away, leading to less exposure in the game media and ultimately less new players.
(2) Ultimately these sov changes lead to less meaningful fights. If an alliance can only hold as much space as it can live in, there is no point in the alliance engaging in wars of acquisition. You will wind up with little grps of people sitting on their islands with no reason to step off of them.
(3) Sure people "hate" supers and capital ships in general, but they are integral to the eve economy. It takes tremendous effort to build a super. Hell, the concerted effort to build any capital ship is considerable - the ore/minerals required alone is enormous. By nerfing supers and other capitals, ccp reduces the demand for these items, which will ripple through the economy in numerous ways. The need for minerals, pi materials etc. . . will all be reduced significantly. Other things such as third party services will be hit hard, since there just wont be the same need to transfer super. And then there is the whole game play associated with capitals - such as fishing fleets etc...., all gone or reduced. What will these people, who have been building and flying capitals, do once their chosen play style is nerfed? Its hard to imagine that they will suddenly fall back into building and flying cruisers - its like asking a mlb player to go back to the minors.
Ultimately, I just cant be optimistic about the sov changes. It strikes me as overly complicated and needlessly disruptive. The fact that these idea come from the same folk that gave us industry teams and the minigame with its spew doesnt help. A simpler system would in my opinion be much more desirable. Sov decay would achieve most of the results that ccp is looking for without the disruption - what is sov decay? It is the idea that if enough people dont live/play in a particular system, they will progressively lose control over the system. As time goes on, npc events appear in the system disrupting game play, and if not responded to, ultimately besieging the system in an incursion like event. If the event is not defeated, the npc would take over the system rendering it contestable npc sov. To prevent these event from being farmed, the npc would not have any appreciable reward for killing them apart from control over the sov of the system. Because no alliance has the people to live everywhere, this type of system would naturally lead to npc sov systems spreading across the map, which would in turn give smaller alliances the opportunity to either stage out of the systems or to grab the systems to live in themselves. So sov decay achieves the same results of promoting access to null for smaller groups while limiting the size of alliances, all without the needless complexity and disruption.
I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12048
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 22:18:16 -
[3575] - Quote
Zakks wrote: You really should be ashamed.
But I'm really not.
Before you quit, can I have your stuff?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
ImYourMom
Republic University Minmatar Republic
58
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 22:28:24 -
[3576] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:[quote=lilol' me]I have to say if anyone is going to kill eve off its ccp fozzie. Completely clueless. Sorry.[/quote
I thought CCP Greyscale was responsible for killing the game?
He did, Fozzie is just putting it out of its misery, instead of the slow painful death. |
Anthar Thebess
953
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 22:37:47 -
[3577] - Quote
CCP is moving into right direction. What i miss is smaller gate sizes. Gates that only allow cruiser or smaller ships could be solution for many current nullsec issues. Downgrading some connections to this size and creating new in this manner could be good starting point for many new groups that someday could contest others in the pursuit for sov space.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
370
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 22:40:13 -
[3578] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:CCP is moving into right direction. What i miss is smaller gate sizes. Gates that only allow cruiser or smaller ships could be solution for many current nullsec issues. Downgrading some connections to this size and creating new in this manner could be good starting point for many new groups that someday could contest others in the pursuit for sov space.
Welcome to Wormholes. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
319
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 22:49:46 -
[3579] - Quote
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:Welcome to Wormholes. Quite an interesting point when you look at it. Why bother taking a small bit of sov in the big boys sandpit when you can lock yourself away in wspace and get 99% of the same end result.
I guess it's not mindless enough for the drones nor ego-pumping enough for the dictators. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6569
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:01:37 -
[3580] - Quote
This is the best topic.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6569
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:03:00 -
[3581] - Quote
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:CCP is moving into right direction. What i miss is smaller gate sizes. Gates that only allow cruiser or smaller ships could be solution for many current nullsec issues. Downgrading some connections to this size and creating new in this manner could be good starting point for many new groups that someday could contest others in the pursuit for sov space.
Welcome to Wormholes. Yeah, ishtars and tengus with sov lasers.
Pretty sweet idea, really.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
1315
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:03:38 -
[3582] - Quote
So where are the CCP responses? 177 pages you should be seeing reponses at least every 20 pages.... but nope........
Why Can't I have a picture signature.
Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
302
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:06:49 -
[3583] - Quote
davet517 wrote: And yet, look at the map. Stasis through mutually assured destruction. The changes that you are talking about did not change the status quo, and aren't likely to do so.
Actually, that's not true - the changes definitely did change the status quo. The Technetium nerf saw the beginning of the last great war over moon goo, and gave rise to the Rental Empires. (And really, PBLRD only exists because no matter how much you dislike a thing, if it's unbeatably effective, and your enemy has one, you better get one, or he's going to get an unanswerable advantage.)
The other two changes Aralyn's talking about are the Phoebe changes, and the ones wer'e discussing here: Phase 1 and Phase 2 - they haven't had the time to really change the map, and they weren't designed to do it separately.
Quote: My bias is against stasis. In the world, order and stability is good. In a game, it's death. Eve has been around a long time now, especially for an MMO that is PvP based. Games like that usually succumb to "mudflation" eventually. Right now, you could fit the people who actually control the direction of 0.0 in a minivan, and half of those seldom if ever actually play the game. They just own the game.
More of them play the game more often than you might suspect - and more importantly, they want this to be a game they want to play, not a game they want to look at and say 'yep, I won that one, no more to do there'. And if you're complaining about stasis, I'll just point out that the borders pretty much froze completely with the introduction of the Phoebe changes - which all the same voices were here crowing about as 'going to destroy' groups like the CFC, N3, and PL. The only real changes were the regions we each sold off - which became part of rental empires.
Quote: From CCPs perspective, they have to look at hard data. Participation which grew for years, is falling now, post "blue donut". They need to do something, and that something needs to be radical enough that it causes the big power blocs to bleed numbers to smaller, more nimble entities who engage in meaningful fights more often.
Participation's actually been dropping for a while. Look at those charts in the Phase 1 devblog again. The end of the Fountain War in 2013, numbers dropped until the Halloween War began. B-R saw a spike, and then everything falls away again. That's not the 'Blue Donut' doing that - those are wars being fought, and then people backing off to recover. You say subscriptions have been going up for years, and yes, they have, but what percentage of that is new players, and what percentage is 'huh, I need 10 mining alts' or cyno alts? I know a handful - less than a dozen people - who've added well over 150 accounts between them, just making sure they had enough alts to be able to position them around.
The 'Blue Donut' has been something people have been complaining about for at least 3 years. So if numbers are falling now, maybe it's because suddenly all those reasons for alt accounts aren't so valid anymore.
Quote: I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it.
Look, if you wanna lay the blame on TMC, that's great, but trollceptors were discussed here as well, by a lot more folks than we have on staff there. And again: the guy telling you to listen to the Metashow is telling you to listen to just how gleeful people like The Mittani (you know, the 'TM' in 'TMC') are about the potential for this system. Narrow the primetime window? In most places, things like xttz's proposal (for the record, an op-ed written by someone not on staff) would widen the window. It's not about making it less of a PITA to hold a coalition together. It's about making living in null something worth doing.
There will always be strength in numbers. There is literally nothing in these changes that even begins to threaten that. Mostly, what these changes might do is reduce our footprint, and reduce our sov bills. |
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:11:15 -
[3584] - Quote
Zakks wrote:As a newer player (2months), I am ready to quit after my sub ends this month. There is no place for, how you say, 'scrubs' in this game. I have never seen such a sense of entitlement by a group of veteran players! Having read some of this topic has done nothing to change my thoughts. This game will die, because of your status quo thinking, unless the game developers flip you the bird and shake things up. I mean really change it big time. But you will cry and moan about it, and then try and destroy it for everyone. Because you can.
So come and wreck my game, if that what gets your jollies. You really should be ashamed.
Hey mate, before quitting you should give a proper corporation a chance to show you what makes Eve so special and fun / hate to play. The issue isn't the entitlement of bitter vets - believe it or not - most of the major 0.0 coalitions are craving for changes, even when it means losing the current cozy little blue donut. You can't blame people for caring about their fav game and posting their feedback, emotional as it may be from time to time, same as your statement is a bag of tears about being a scrub. We've all been there.
The thing is, people agree on the statement "things have to change, in a massive way". But what way to take, that's the actual question and many believe that a FW-ish system won't improve things. Most of 0.0 has been in a state of stability and awaiting of these announcements, not in fear but with hopes and expectations to change the status quo. This won't change the status quo, it'll readjust size of empires, but the same empires are still going to rule. You'll always have many opinions about these things and the general impression in this thread is that way over 90% of the nullsec population is disappointed and not a fan. The people pushing most for these changes - most of them not stating "leave it as it is, it's superb the way it is", but rather trying to suggest different things and approaches that feel more fun to play in the future. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:15:34 -
[3585] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: What you would end up with, is large alliances still holding all the valuable moons and simply having 1,000 or 2,000 members living in each mooned system. So yes, content and conflict, for about a month.
Tax lowsec moons, Good moons lose value but are still valuable, lower level moons become useless as many aren't all that profitable now until reactions are done and often there isn't 25% profit in them.
I think you're misreading the value of these moons. Their value is that they're passive. As a power block, you can count on them month in month out while hardly ever having to defend them as long as you have the "nuclear deterrent" of a super-cap blob. They generate a lot of income, but not enough to justify the manpower that it would take to actively defend as many as the power blocs own today. Yes, people who are used to mining moons in low-sec would probably have to move to null if they wanted to continue doing that. CCP might want to take a look at how moons are distributed, with some attention to placing valuable moons in systems with less desirable truesec, to provide additional incentive for conquering those systems. I'm not misreading anything, I know how valuable the moons are, I've also lived in nulsec long enough to know who owns them and why they own them. Having spent time managing income moons for a fairly large group - believe me, there is nothing passive about it. It has got to be the worst job anyone who plays eve could do. People who don't have moons seem to be under the misapprehension it is passive income. Go manage a network of moons for 3 months, then tell me it is pure passive income.
Your supercap scenario may have been accurate a few months ago but is mute now since we got "eve in slow motion". Seriously though, if your group isn't able to fight a super blob and win why are you trying to take a moon that belongs to such a group? You do know that whether those supers are close to a pos in lowsec or nulsec they are still going to beat the crap out of you if you can't match their fire power and win the fight. That is why R64/32 moons will always belong to large well organized groups.
So if I'm reading your reply correctly, you want to completely break the game by removing moons from lowsec? Lowsec, Nulsec mechanics are broken, these changes if put in game as they are now aren't going to do anything to bring life to our stagnant little homes. In fact what it will do is create even tighter groups of allies defending each others backs while the small unaligned groups stay right where they are, nowhere..
My suggestion Dave, talk to some people who have been in Lowsec and Nulsec for more than 5 mins. Talk to people from the well known groups and ask them what they think, many are happy to give you general info if you ask.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
302
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:18:43 -
[3586] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Godfrey Silvarna wrote:Welcome to Wormholes. Quite an interesting point when you look at it. Why bother taking a small bit of sov in the big boys sandpit when you can lock yourself away in wspace and get 99% of the same end result. I guess it's not mindless enough for the drones nor ego-pumping enough for the dictators.
Actually, I lived in w-space for a few years. It's fun, but it's not what I'm after. I like the big fights. I've found the happiest I've been in this game is winding the logi of a fleet through the middle of a massive slugfest involving 4 enemy fleets and a broken grid in 10% tidi. I like it when there's a challenge, and I have to be on top of my game (because in tidi, every delay in changing my mind or evaluating things is magnified. It feels like you have all the time in the world, but that's all a lie).
You don't get that kind of thing in w-space. Not really. Sure, the big toys come out, but it's never the same. But I'd hardly call it 'ego-pumping' or myself one of 'the dictators'. I'm a fleet guy, that's pretty much it. I want to do things where skill, and judgment, and the ability to keep calm under pressure can make a difference. Small gang stuff never feels like that to me - it always feels like the initial encounter determines everything. Someone screws up, everyone's toast. In a big fleet action, if the FC screws up, yeah, we're gonna take a pounding - but if I'm on my game, I can minimize how bad that's going to be. S'just my thing, I guess. I'm weird. I love the tidi. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
319
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:25:47 -
[3587] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Godfrey Silvarna wrote:Welcome to Wormholes. Quite an interesting point when you look at it. Why bother taking a small bit of sov in the big boys sandpit when you can lock yourself away in wspace and get 99% of the same end result. I guess it's not mindless enough for the drones nor ego-pumping enough for the dictators. Actually, I lived in w-space for a few years. It's fun, but it's not what I'm after. I like the big fights. I've found the happiest I've been in this game is winding the logi of a fleet through the middle of a massive slugfest involving 4 enemy fleets and a broken grid in 10% tidi. I like it when there's a challenge, and I have to be on top of my game (because in tidi, every delay in changing my mind or evaluating things is magnified. It feels like you have all the time in the world, but that's all a lie). You don't get that kind of thing in w-space. Not really. Sure, the big toys come out, but it's never the same. But I'd hardly call it 'ego-pumping' or myself one of 'the dictators'. I'm a fleet guy, that's pretty much it. I want to do things where skill, and judgment, and the ability to keep calm under pressure can make a difference. Small gang stuff never feels like that to me - it always feels like the initial encounter determines everything. Someone screws up, everyone's toast. In a big fleet action, if the FC screws up, yeah, we're gonna take a pounding - but if I'm on my game, I can minimize how bad that's going to be. S'just my thing, I guess. I'm weird. I love the tidi. True I apologise for my snark - but when I first moved into wspace with my first corp it was our way of 'owning' a small part of eve and far more feasible than trying to do the same in null without having to rent / swear allegiance to a larger group.
So I guess my snarkless point is: What's in it for a small group to move to null instead of a little C-hole?
edit: I guess there's restrictions for manu/indy people wanting to do T2 production / bash rocks more safely, I guess that might be the draw to null instead of WH? |
Zakks
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:30:54 -
[3588] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zakks wrote: You really should be ashamed.
But I'm really not. Before you quit, can I have your stuff?
And just how much stuff can I have? Just now looking at something bigger than a destroyer. You must fly around a pretty big ship for those *******. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:40:06 -
[3589] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:davet517 wrote:Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us. I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it. As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess Alvaria; That response is a little narrow minded for you, I thought you better than that.
Unless nulsec triples in size, coalitions need to lose some of the overwhelming power they have.
Coalitions don't need to be disbanded or broken up, they simply need to change their focus from military might to EG; trade agreements and travel routes. That would create content in nulsec without CCP having to change anything. If an alliance can't hold what it has on its own strengths, it really doesn't deserve to have it.
Take the military might of "blues" out of nulsec it would become a great conflict driven place to live.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
302
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:47:29 -
[3590] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:True I apologise for my snark - but when I first moved into wspace with my first corp it was our way of 'owning' a small part of eve and far more feasible than trying to do the same in null without having to rent / swear allegiance to a larger group.
Pfft. If we couldn't be snarky, we'd have to go mad. ;)
Quote: So I guess my snarkless point is: What's in it for a small group to move to null instead of a little C-hole?
That's the $64,000 question, now isn't it? 'Why should I want to hold sov?'
I mean, clearly, it's not the money. If you want to maximize your money, there are better ways - C5-6 w-space, faction warfare, etc, all of which don't require you pay CONCORD just to live where you live. Are those things always better money? Probably not, but they're almost certainly better on a cost/benefit analysis. FW has multiple stations in most of their systems, you don't have to worry about upkeep, the very thing that makes you money is what give you control of the system, etc etc. W-space, you've got a dangerous environment, but if you're smart and alert, you can pretty well control access to your space in a way null residents can't, and when you do go to do your space-job, the money is definitely better in terms of isk/man-hour.
So why do it?
Right now, it's basically just to plant a flag, to say 'we built this'. As it is, though... what've you really built? Deploying a station egg's a big deal for some, for others... it's an ALOD. IHUBs are important, but they're important as a means of making it harder to take your stuff, mostly, and making a bit of improvement on what's already there.
So what, really, do the empire-builders build? Transportation networks were a thing... but the Phoebe changes crushed those - they're very much a 'emergencies only' thing now. They used to be a seriously quality-of-life improvement. People talk about 'player-built stargates', well... that's what jumpbridges are, in most regards. So, if they put in player-built stargates, and someone builds a route that allows people to go across space in a way that's convenient... will that be too much force projection?
Or is it only too much because we do it? Because the blocs do it?
And if there's an arbitrary 'you're doing too well', then... why bother? Why do something if you're not going to be allowed to succeed? Why advertise the ability to do something if it's going to be a lie, because the company's going to take your money while you work toward your goal, but make damned sure that if you actually build something that stands above the competition, you're going to get beaten down?
Don't get me wrong, we don't want null to be static. Static is boring as hell. That's why a lot of us are for the concepts in play here, we're just not sure of the exact execution of those concepts. 4 hours a day? We've got people around the world, why should we get enthused about 'hey, half our members, you're going to be bored' combined with 'hey, other half of our members, you're not going to have any time to do your own thing'?
Giving the system variety allows the people doing their own thing - as long as they're contributing, as long as they are part of making that space a living, populated environment - a way to be valuable in the protection of the system. And systems that aren't used are more and more vulnerable.
Putting in more things that function as solid quality-of-life improvements for the people who live in the space they own provides them a reason to live there, and a reason to own their space instead of just living there.
Imagine if you could live in w-space, and have Local work. For you, because it's your hole. Someone comes in, you see them. Maybe they don't see you. But to get this ability, you have to claim that system, and you have to defend it. You would, wouldn't you? |
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
359
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 23:53:07 -
[3591] - Quote
Zakks wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zakks wrote: You really should be ashamed.
But I'm really not. Before you quit, can I have your stuff? And just how much stuff can I have? Just now looking at something bigger than a destroyer. You must fly around a pretty big ship for those *******. Zakks, you have started eve at a great time. Quitting now, just as things are about to get a major shake up is of course your choice. If you will take some advice from someone who has been around for a while - Renew that subscription for a few months and see what happens.
Sov changes in the current proposed form aren't close to the right way to go and hopefully Devs will rework it, a lot, before it goes live.
I'm keeping 2 accounts active in the hopes CCP will get it close to right. If they do manage to listen to players and actually make sov a viable thing, I'll end up resubbing my other accounts.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Vidicar Madorso
Patriots and Tyrants The Volition Cult
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:03:21 -
[3592] - Quote
I think that attacking SOV in any form should be considered a serious endeavor by the aggressor and not just an attack on SOV for kicks and giggles. I am concerned about the burnout that will inevitably occur with line members and FC's in the primetime window. I believe that this scenario can be partially managed by War Dec's.
The current War Dec mechanism vexes me because it really isnt a true war declaration but rather a just a mechanism to initiate hostilities in HS. I dont propose to change the current war dec mechanism (for all you Jita to Amarr pipe campers) but I think it should be renamed to "Writ of Hostility" (or something else).
Then implement a new War Declaration mechanism which is truly what it should be. A Declaration of War.
For a cost more than the Current War Declarations (possibly based on member size) you can open hostilities against another Alliance or Corporation sov structures. This War Dec could be performed at the Alliance OR Corp level and against a specific Alliance OR Corp. War Dec's made against a Corp would allow the Corps Alliance members to join in the war but only if they also pay the War Dec (or perhaps some form of Support Dec) cost at a reduced cost. The specific details would have to be worked out obviously but this mechanic would: - have a 24 (48?) hour warning of impending attack - prevent drive-by SOV attacks thus allowing primetime line members and FC's some opportunity to perhaps rest between wars or do some farming. - have the loss of a SOV system create a Casus Belli for the loser of the system so that they could retaliate on the aggressor in the future at a much reduced War Dec cost. - Costs based on the number of members. This requires the attackers or defenders to make choices on how much force they feel they need to apply to obtain the objective.
It seems to me that this could open up some interesting dynamics such Corp vrs Corp wars (without drawing in the entire Alliance), or having some Corps in a different Alliance providing support to the targeted (or attacking) Corp to deny (or achieve) specific objectives. And possibly internal drama in the alliance if the defending Corp is not well liked.
What I like about it is that it uses an existing mechanism in the for of War Dec's and just enhances it. It also mirrors our own planet where if a country is attacked then other countries can support them or not at their choice. I recognize that there is probably lots of holes and pitfalls in this idea but I'm sure some of you can flesh out the idea more. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10140
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:12:51 -
[3593] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:davet517 wrote:Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us. I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it. As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess I think there is no issue with coalitions like yours still existing, I personally would hate to see you guys fall as you bring in so much content, but what is needed is a vibrant small alliance battlefield, and please don't say low sec...
There are vibrant small alliance battlefields. They are called wormholes, low sec/faction warfare , High sec and NPC null.
In other words the entire rest of New Eden. Why people think every part of EVE must be the same is beyond me.
|
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
84
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:14:56 -
[3594] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:davet517 wrote:Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us. I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it. As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess I think there is no issue with coalitions like yours still existing, I personally would hate to see you guys fall as you bring in so much content, but what is needed is a vibrant small alliance battlefield, and please don't say low sec... There are vibrant small alliance battlefields. They are called wormholes, low sec/faction warfare , High sec and NPC null. In other words the entire rest of New Eden. Why people think every part of EVE must be the same is beyond me. Because most people are stupid. |
Zakks
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:15:12 -
[3595] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Zakks, you have started eve at a great time. Quitting now, just as things are about to get a major shake up is of course your choice. If you will take some advice from someone who has been around for a while - Renew that subscription for a few months and see what happens.
Sov changes in the current proposed form aren't close to the right way to go and hopefully Devs will rework it, a lot, before it goes live.
I'm keeping 2 accounts active in the hopes CCP will get it close to right. If they do manage to listen to players and actually make sov a viable thing, I'll end up resubbing my other accounts.
Thanks, we'll see. There are some good folks in this game too it seems. Best of luck to everyone with whatever changes.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10140
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:19:34 -
[3596] - Quote
Duffyman wrote: Never forget Malcanis Law:
"Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
Obviously if these changes go ahead as proposed, it'll be the current powers that will abuse it to hell. You'll see...
That's Malcanis' law. Jenn's law is "No matter how many times reality proves Malcanis' law is true, people, including professional game developers, will forget the past 11 seconds later, like big ass human shaped gold fish"
Still refining the wording of my law there, but you get the gist.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
359
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:20:36 -
[3597] - Quote
Vidicar Madorso wrote:I think that attacking SOV in any form should be considered a serious endeavor by the aggressor and not just an attack on SOV for kicks and giggles. I am concerned about the burnout that will inevitably occur with line members and FC's in the primetime window. I believe that this scenario can be partially managed by War Dec's.
The current War Dec mechanism vexes me because it really isnt a true war declaration but rather a just a mechanism to initiate hostilities in HS. I dont propose to change the current war dec mechanism (for all you Jita to Amarr pipe campers) but I think it should be renamed to "Writ of Hostility" (or something else).
Then implement a new War Declaration mechanism which is truly what it should be. A Declaration of War.
For a cost more than the Current War Declarations (possibly based on member size) you can open hostilities against another Alliance or Corporation sov structures. This War Dec could be performed at the Alliance OR Corp level and against a specific Alliance OR Corp. War Dec's made against a Corp would allow the Corps Alliance members to join in the war but only if they also pay the War Dec (or perhaps some form of Support Dec) cost at a reduced cost. The specific details would have to be worked out obviously, but this mechanic would: - have a 24 (48?) hour warning of impending attack - prevent drive-by SOV attacks thus allowing primetime line members and FC's some opportunity to perhaps rest between wars or do some farming. - have the loss of a SOV system create a Casus Belli for the loser of the system so that they could retaliate on the aggressor in the future at a much reduced War Dec cost. - Costs based on the number of members in the Alliance or Corp (Defenders need never spend more than the value of the Aggressor if the Defender is larger than the Aggressor). This requires the attackers or defenders to make choices on how much force (in Corps and Alliances) they feel they need to apply to obtain the objective.
It seems to me that this could open up some interesting dynamics such Corp vrs Corp wars (without drawing in the entire Alliance), or having some Corps in a different Alliance providing support to the targeted (or attacking) Corp to deny (or achieve) specific objectives. And possibly internal drama in the alliance if the defending Corp is not well liked.
What I like about it is that it uses an existing mechanism in the form of War Dec's, and just enhances it. It also mirrors our own planet where if a country is attacked then other countries can support them or not at their choice. I recognize that there is probably lots of holes and pitfalls in this idea but I'm sure some of you can flesh out the idea more. Then you have the downside of such a system - Coalitions aren't going to allow someone to wardec one of their member groups without the whole coalition wardeccing them. 40,000 vs 1,000, so the 1,000 call in allies to even things up and we have exactly what we have now - Nothing to do.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Vidicar Madorso
Patriots and Tyrants The Volition Cult
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:29:49 -
[3598] - Quote
I'm not convinced. If an attacking Corp or small alliance has 50 members I think there will be some thought put into that decision. The defender will have to decide if they want to pay for 15000 members to defend the sov of one corp? Likely they will assign a specific set of Corps that is suitably sized to handle the threat. Perhaps 500 members. Either way it requires decisions to be made and CCP is very much in favor of players having to make decisions |
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:51:30 -
[3599] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Duffyman wrote: Never forget Malcanis Law:
"Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
Obviously if these changes go ahead as proposed, it'll be the current powers that will abuse it to hell. You'll see...
That's Malcanis' law. Jenn's law is "No matter how many times reality proves Malcanis' law is true, people, including professional game developers, will forget the past 11 seconds later, like big ass human shaped gold fish" Still refining the wording of my law there, but you get the gist. You know self invented laws named after yourself is kinda sad please stop being a stupid person. Just say they are all being goldfish then you might get some traction with your stupid law. It's really stupid not sure if I made that clear. |
Maddaxe Illat
HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:51:44 -
[3600] - Quote
I would like to thank you CCP for giving me my life back because if the change go thought as is I will unsub all 18 account. I will do this because even thought you say that you have people in Null sec. You have know Idea how this game you make works. Sov dose need to change but not this way. The best this that could happen to this game would be for CCP Fozzie to be fired Because he must have stock in star citizen or elite dangerous. Because he doesn't want anyone to play eve anymore |
|
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:55:58 -
[3601] - Quote
Vidicar Madorso wrote:I'm not convinced. If an attacking Corp or small alliance has 50 members I think there will be some thought put into that decision. The defender will have to decide if they want to pay for 15000 members to defend the sov of one corp? Likely they will assign a specific set of Corps that is suitably sized to handle the threat. Perhaps 500 members. Either way it requires decisions to be made and CCP is very much in favor of players having to make decisions No they won't just assign similar sized corps to handle it. Use overwhelming force every time all the time then people will realize that you don't screw with them, since they always dunk whoever tries to fight them. |
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 00:59:23 -
[3602] - Quote
Maddaxe Illat wrote:I would like to thank you CCP for giving me my life back because if the change go thought as is I will unsub all 18 account. I will do this because even thought you say that you have people in Null sec. You have know Idea how this game you make works. Sov dose need to change but not this way. The best this that could happen to this game would be for CCP Fozzie to be fired Because he must have stock in star citizen or elite dangerous. Because he doesn't want anyone to play eve anymore Hey look a guy that can not evolve darwinism at its finest folks right here. So can I see what characters you are selling because I want to go from a 8 account setup to like 20 I like my alts we party hearty everynight. But seriously hit me up with a sale thread. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 01:05:11 -
[3603] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
That's Malcanis' law. Jenn's law is "No matter how many times reality proves Malcanis' law is true, people, including professional game developers, will forget the past 11 seconds later, like big ass human shaped gold fish"
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a.k.a learned helplessness. If it really is checkmate - the old and rich have the game by the nuts on a downhill pull, it's time to call it. Hand out trophies to the dozen people who "won Eve", wipe the server, and we can all start out in high sec belts in our frigs again. Knowing how it turned out this time, they can use some 20-20 hindsight starting at about RMR and make some different choices.
I don't think we're there yet. Whatever they do, the "blue donut" has to go. I think these changes are a step in the right direction. Removing the local crutch would help too. Pulling high end moons into the new mechanic by making them iHub dependent would be a huge help too. Null needs to get a lot more dangerous, and dynamic.
Malcanis' law is not an immutable law of the universe, unless the bulk of the player base believes that it is. If they believe that there's nothing that they can do, and they believe that whatever change occurs will only benefit the oligarchs, then yes, it's true. These mechanics invite a change to that thinking, but they don't require it. It'll be up to the players. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
360
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 01:24:35 -
[3604] - Quote
Vidicar Madorso wrote:I'm not convinced. If an attacking Corp or small alliance has 50 members I think there will be some thought put into that decision. The defender will have to decide if they want to pay for 15000 members to defend the sov of one corp? Likely they will assign a specific set of Corps that is suitably sized to handle the threat. Perhaps 500 members. Either way it requires decisions to be made and CCP is very much in favor of players having to make decisions Problem is though, they don't need to pay for a war dec, they can simply support them by going there and killing the attackers.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 01:32:18 -
[3605] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:[quote=davet517]
There will always be strength in numbers. There is literally nothing in these changes that even begins to threaten that. Mostly, what these changes might do is reduce our footprint, and reduce our sov bills.
That's what Cyvok thought. Maybe before your time. What threatens strength in numbers is losing the numbers. Strength in numbers feeds on itself. It's not hard to envision changes that would threaten numbers. They would be changes that make it more fun to attack a big coalition than it is to be in one. These changes certainly move in that direction.
Landing in power-bloc space with anything less than a super-cap blob looking to mess with their sov today is definitely un-fun. Unless you literally have trillions in resources that's a closed game. Constant harassment of it with sub-cap gangs? Definitely more fun.
If the people attacking the big blocs are having more fun than those who huddle together for strength in numbers within them, the numbers will start bleeding away. These mechanics make it more possible, but people still have to choose to do it. Can they be socially engineered not to? Probably, and I'm sure some folks are pretty smug in thinking that they can. We'll see.
In a game, not knowing what's going to happen is certainly more interesting than knowing what's going to happen.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
360
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 01:53:41 -
[3606] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:davet517 wrote:Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us. I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it. As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess I think there is no issue with coalitions like yours still existing, I personally would hate to see you guys fall as you bring in so much content, but what is needed is a vibrant small alliance battlefield, and please don't say low sec... There are vibrant small alliance battlefields. They are called wormholes, low sec/faction warfare , High sec and NPC null. In other words the entire rest of New Eden. Why people think every part of EVE must be the same is beyond me. So you are affirming what many believe but won't say outright - Small alliances have no right to sov.. Well done
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6572
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 02:33:09 -
[3607] - Quote
davet517 wrote:If the people attacking the big blocs are having more fun than those who huddle together for strength in numbers within them, the numbers will start bleeding away. These mechanics make it more possible, but people still have to choose to do it. Can they be socially engineered not to? Probably, and I'm sure some folks are pretty smug in thinking that they can. We'll see.
In a game, not knowing what's going to happen is certainly more interesting than knowing what's going to happen. Oh yes. Moa at least has declared they will end our 0.0 nightmare. I think you, too, can get an interceptor or something and help make it happen
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
306
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 02:37:14 -
[3608] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Arrendis wrote:
There will always be strength in numbers. There is literally nothing in these changes that even begins to threaten that. Mostly, what these changes might do is reduce our footprint, and reduce our sov bills.
That's what Cyvok thought. Maybe before your time. What threatens strength in numbers is losing the numbers. Strength in numbers feeds on itself. It's not hard to envision changes that would threaten numbers. They would be changes that make it more fun to attack a big coalition than it is to be in one. These changes certainly move in that direction.
No, they really don't. There's no course of action available to 'outsiders' that isn't available to bloc members. Only with more friends to help make sure they're successful.
It's great that you can cite Steve as an example, but it's just not true. Steve wasn't destroyed by 'some dude', it was destroyed by numbers - and numbers taking advantage of what even Molle acknowledged was a glitch.
If you're thinking the blocs will be huddling together in fear of subcap gangs, you really haven't been paying any attention to how they work. They'll be those subcap gangs, harrying each other, harrying the little guys, and still having enough manpower to do exactly what happens now: 'oh, look, a MOA gang is coming through. Let's form up harpies to kill them.'
We don't just use supercaps, even today. And as it stands, these changes only allow a 4-hr window of vulnerability. 20 hours a day, those subcap gangs you're talking about will be pointless. And it's the blocs - it's PGL from N3, Mittens and xttz from our side, Grath and others in PL - who are offering up an idea of 'hey, why not make the window wider the less used the system is?'
Do you really think we're doing that because we're huddling and afraid? We want null to be more fun. Fun is fun, even for us. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6572
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 02:46:58 -
[3609] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:davet517 wrote:Arrendis wrote:
There will always be strength in numbers. There is literally nothing in these changes that even begins to threaten that. Mostly, what these changes might do is reduce our footprint, and reduce our sov bills.
That's what Cyvok thought. Maybe before your time. What threatens strength in numbers is losing the numbers. Strength in numbers feeds on itself. It's not hard to envision changes that would threaten numbers. They would be changes that make it more fun to attack a big coalition than it is to be in one. These changes certainly move in that direction. No, they really don't. There's no course of action available to 'outsiders' that isn't available to bloc members. Only with more friends to help make sure they're successful. It's great that you can cite Steve as an example, but it's just not true. Steve wasn't destroyed by 'some dude', it was destroyed by numbers - and numbers taking advantage of what even Molle acknowledged was a glitch. If you're thinking the blocs will be huddling together in fear of subcap gangs, you really haven't been paying any attention to how they work. They'll be those subcap gangs, harrying each other, harrying the little guys, and still having enough manpower to do exactly what happens now: 'oh, look, a MOA gang is coming through. Let's form up harpies to kill them.' We don't just use supercaps, even today. And as it stands, these changes only allow a 4-hr window of vulnerability. 20 hours a day, those subcap gangs you're talking about will be pointless. And it's the blocs - it's PGL from N3, Mittens and xttz from our side, Grath and others in PL - who are offering up an idea of 'hey, why not make the window wider the less used the system is?' Do you really think we're doing that because we're huddling and afraid? We want null to be more fun. Fun is fun, even for us. Alternatively, spin zone and we're actually huddling and afraid.
By which I actually just mean cfc because who would harass n3, the heroes which will save eve once nadot takes over all of null. SO actually they're eager anticipating free help from everyone else in eve, which will finally enable them to end the cfc's 0.0 nightmare
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6572
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 02:51:48 -
[3610] - Quote
And by nadot take over all space, I actually mean:
They give as much sov as their new friends want and wait for them to give up because it isn't worth it, then they can get it back from them, basically an "all you can eat until you are sick of it" sov.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
360
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 02:56:56 -
[3611] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Arrendis wrote:davet517 wrote:Arrendis wrote:
There will always be strength in numbers. There is literally nothing in these changes that even begins to threaten that. Mostly, what these changes might do is reduce our footprint, and reduce our sov bills.
That's what Cyvok thought. Maybe before your time. What threatens strength in numbers is losing the numbers. Strength in numbers feeds on itself. It's not hard to envision changes that would threaten numbers. They would be changes that make it more fun to attack a big coalition than it is to be in one. These changes certainly move in that direction. No, they really don't. There's no course of action available to 'outsiders' that isn't available to bloc members. Only with more friends to help make sure they're successful. It's great that you can cite Steve as an example, but it's just not true. Steve wasn't destroyed by 'some dude', it was destroyed by numbers - and numbers taking advantage of what even Molle acknowledged was a glitch. If you're thinking the blocs will be huddling together in fear of subcap gangs, you really haven't been paying any attention to how they work. They'll be those subcap gangs, harrying each other, harrying the little guys, and still having enough manpower to do exactly what happens now: 'oh, look, a MOA gang is coming through. Let's form up harpies to kill them.' We don't just use supercaps, even today. And as it stands, these changes only allow a 4-hr window of vulnerability. 20 hours a day, those subcap gangs you're talking about will be pointless. And it's the blocs - it's PGL from N3, Mittens and xttz from our side, Grath and others in PL - who are offering up an idea of 'hey, why not make the window wider the less used the system is?' Do you really think we're doing that because we're huddling and afraid? We want null to be more fun. Fun is fun, even for us. Alternatively, spin zone and we're actually huddling and afraid. By which I actually just mean cfc because who would harass n3, the heroes which will save eve once nadot takes over all of null. SO actually they're eager anticipating free help from everyone else in eve, which will finally enable them to end the cfc's 0.0 nightmare Please!! You are as bad as each other LOL
I do agree though the window for "Prime Time" (what a horrible concept) should be variable.
I dabble with another game that has a fixed 2 hour prime time daily for battlestations - Prime time is great for the big clans with lots of allies but not so good for the small clans who can't have 50 members on at the right time. NB; clan size is limited to 50 but you can have as many allies as you choose. So we have clans with 40 or 50 members with 20 or 30 allied clans, which has created a very uneven playing field. Devs are asking for player suggestions as to how they want prime time because in its current form, it is just not working and has created stagnation.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
130
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 03:02:43 -
[3612] - Quote
Once again, Fozzie proves to be an obedient goon lad pog.
Is there anything in those changes which isn't a goon wet dream?
No, nothing, only goonies win. Like they took the biggest win in jump fatigue changes, and Fozzie's nerf-every-ship-and-tactic-goons-are-too-bad-to-use crusade.
#stopfozzie
I live in one of the +200% PVP regions. I believe there was a stated goal to bring more pvp in every region, so can we STOP changes which remove even more pvp from Deklein and bring even more to stupid forms of it to my side of the donut?
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6572
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 03:04:17 -
[3613] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Once again, Fozzie proves to be an obedient goon lad pog.
Is there anything in those changes which isn't a goon wet dream?
No, nothing, only goonies win. Like they took the biggest win in jump fatigue changes, and Fozzie's nerf-every-ship-and-tactic-goons-are-too-bad-to-use crusade.
#stopfozzie
I live in one of the +200% PVP regions. I believe there was a stated goal to bring more pvp in every region, so can we STOP changes which remove even more pvp from Deklein and bring even more to stupid forms of it to my side of the donut? I can't believe this.
Isn't this thread full of goon tears and people eagerly anticipating the end of the goons' 0.0 dream?
It looks very much like a thread discussing fatigue which if you remember promptly led to our downfall.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2606
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 03:16:01 -
[3614] - Quote
Coalitions will die . . . or thrive.
Tears are being shed, or lapped up.
seriously, who cares? It comes down to the part of the dev blog everybody skimmed through. That first part where the goals were set out. NO WHERE in there was there any mention of the effect on specific alliances, coalitions, corps, or art appreciation societies.
Reminder of the Goals.
Quote:Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved
Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems
Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.
Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.
Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load.
Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.
So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now?
Does this plan address the goals properly?
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
360
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 03:25:58 -
[3615] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Coalitions will die . . . or thrive. Tears are being shed, or lapped up. seriously, who cares? It comes down to the part of the dev blog everybody skimmed through. That first part where the goals were set out. NO WHERE in there was there any mention of the effect on specific alliances, coalitions, corps, or art appreciation societies. Reminder of the Goals. Quote:Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved
Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems
Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.
Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.
Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load.
Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE. So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now? Does this plan address the goals properly? m The stated goals are good but not achievable under the current proposal of changes.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 03:34:46 -
[3616] - Quote
Arrendis wrote: If you're thinking the blocs will be huddling together in fear of subcap gangs, you really haven't been paying any attention to how they work. They'll be those subcap gangs, harrying each other, harrying the little guys, and still having enough manpower to do exactly what happens now: 'oh, look, a MOA gang is coming through. Let's form up harpies to kill them.'
No, I'm thinking that the blocks will get tired of having 50 timers to defend constantly. You are too, from the looks of the PR blitz. It's a reasonable downside of owning too much of the map.
Quote: We don't just use supercaps, even today. And as it stands, these changes only allow a 4-hr window of vulnerability. 20 hours a day, those subcap gangs you're talking about will be pointless. And it's the blocs - it's PGL from N3, Mittens and xttz from our side, Grath and others in PL - who are offering up an idea of 'hey, why not make the window wider the less used the system is?'
Would be great if that's what you were proposing. To refresh your memory:
Quote: At the lowest end of the scale, recently taken systems with little to no Military / Industrial activity would have a window of something like 8-12 hours. Long-standing systems with maxed indexes would only be vulnerable for 2-3 hours a day. Everything else would fall somewhere in between, depending how it was used on a day-to-day basis.
Recently taken systems ought to have a big vulnerability window... riiiiiiight. And of course, power-bloc central should only be vulnerable for a couple of hours.
The defensive multipliers are plenty of incentive to raise the indexes The window is fine, unless you want to take Manny's suggestion (Manny rocks) and make it 6. If you really want to make it fun, the "prime time" window shouldn't apply to starting the reinforced timer at all. It should only apply to the "capture event". To avoid the defender having to grind every time a timer gets set, just let the capture event straight up time out in a couple of hours and have everything go back to normal if nobody shows up to contest it.
Quote: Do you really think we're doing that because we're huddling and afraid? We want null to be more fun. Fun is fun, even for us.
If I thought so, I would have said so, but that's not what I said. I said that right now, its more fun to belong to a massive coalition than to attack one. That needs to flip, if massive coalitions aren't going to continue to dominate.
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
130
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 03:36:50 -
[3617] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Once again, Fozzie proves to be an obedient goon lad pog.
Is there anything in those changes which isn't a goon wet dream?
No, nothing, only goonies win. Like they took the biggest win in jump fatigue changes, and Fozzie's nerf-every-ship-and-tactic-goons-are-too-bad-to-use crusade.
#stopfozzie
I live in one of the +200% PVP regions. I believe there was a stated goal to bring more pvp in every region, so can we STOP changes which remove even more pvp from Deklein and bring even more to stupid forms of it to my side of the donut? I can't believe this. Isn't this thread full of goon tears and people eagerly anticipating the end of the goons' 0.0 dream? It looks very much like a thread discussing fatigue which if you remember promptly led to our downfall.
Since when -20% PvP in Deklein is a downfall? It's a heaven's gift for isk printing bot fleets. A pure epic win. A freebies of vulgar proportions.
Now don't get me wrong. If this goes live, I'm joining Mordu's Angels just to balance the scales, because goonies are gaining so much with this again, it's royally pissing me off, and makes me wish to actively enforce some balance. I'm not expecting a downfall, it'll take a lot more than me to break people who are getting so much free wins for free every year, but you got completely spoiled by it.
You goons are always crying. You are so used to getting things by crying that you can't stop anymore. But now you seriously look like a crying kid who expected a Ferrari and got Lexus instead. This time you're practically getting handed keys to eve. And it's not even the first time, you had plenty given to you, just cba to use them before, until you felt like it, and even then you mostly used it to stomp unrelated people.
The system itself has potential. To realize it, some steps need to be taken, like fixing cloaky camping to make sov worth anything (cloaky camped system is worth only its moons value, which is **** for most systems and will not cover ships and effort required to defend it from even less-then-moderate-sized threat), and balancing the heavy attacker bias it currently has. But I will object to it as long as only one favored alliance is getting all the benefits, while virtually everyone else (except maybe "Lowsechnaya Sholupen" or how were they called again?) is getting every shortcoming of it.
But CCP don't give a puck. They are set on giving the goonies yet another toy for free. They will probably do it, and while pretending to listen, will do it on even more goon-favorable conditions than it is laid on us now. Hence grabbing everything I've got and heading for Pure Blind with it is the way to go. You got so much freebies that it's not surprising everyone in this thread wants to burn Deklein, but people who think it'll happen by itself are deluding themselves.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6572
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 03:41:28 -
[3618] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:But I will object to it as long as only one favored alliance is getting all the benefits, while virtually everyone else (except maybe "Lowsechnaya Sholupen" or how were they called again?) is getting every shortcoming of it. RDU, which intends to end us, joined that lowsec group, so I guess we agree that it will soon be over for us then
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 03:42:06 -
[3619] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Does this plan address the goals properly? Maybe if you had bothered developing your reading comprehension you'd understand that what we've been saying amounts to "no, it ******* doesn't". But you're not interested in a discussion, you just want to throw your tag around like some kind of authority.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6572
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 03:50:06 -
[3620] - Quote
Council of Eveoforums Trolling.
But it's fine really, it's just another entrant in the ling line of people who wholeheartedly agree our 0.0 nightmare will reach the end one way or another.
Note, however, the attempt to save face if it doesn't happen (as if "it wasn't intended to end your 0.0 dream") just in case somehow our 0.0 dream fails to be ended
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 03:50:49 -
[3621] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Once again, Fozzie proves to be an obedient goon lad pog.
Is there anything in those changes which isn't a goon wet dream?
No, nothing, only goonies win. Like they took the biggest win in jump fatigue changes, and Fozzie's nerf-every-ship-and-tactic-goons-are-too-bad-to-use crusade.
#stopfozzie
I live in one of the +200% PVP regions. I believe there was a stated goal to bring more pvp in every region, so can we STOP changes which remove even more pvp from Deklein and bring even more to stupid forms of it to my side of the donut? I can't believe this. Isn't this thread full of goon tears and people eagerly anticipating the end of the goons' 0.0 dream? It looks very much like a thread discussing fatigue which if you remember promptly led to our downfall. Since when -20% PvP in Deklein is a downfall? It's a heaven's gift for isk printing bot fleets. A pure epic win. A freebies of vulgar proportions. Now don't get me wrong. If this goes live, I'm joining Mordu's Angels just to balance the scales, because goonies are gaining so much with this again, it's royally pissing me off, and makes me wish to actively enforce some balance. I'm not expecting a downfall, it'll take a lot more than me to break people who are getting so much free wins for free every year, but you got completely spoiled by it. You goons are always crying. You are so used to getting things by crying that you can't stop anymore. But now you seriously look like a crying kid who expected a Ferrari and got Lexus instead. This time you're practically getting handed keys to eve. And it's not even the first time, you had plenty given to you, just cba to use them before, until you felt like it, and even then you mostly used it to stomp unrelated people. The system itself has potential. To realize it, some steps need to be taken, like fixing cloaky camping to make sov worth anything (cloaky camped system is worth only its moons value, which is **** for most systems and will not cover ships and effort required to defend it from even less-then-moderate-sized threat), and balancing the heavy attacker bias it currently has. But I will object to it as long as only one favored alliance is getting all the benefits, while virtually everyone else (except maybe "Lowsechnaya Sholupen" or how were they called again?) is getting every shortcoming of it. But CCP don't give a puck. They are set on giving the goonies yet another toy for free. They will probably do it, and while pretending to listen, will do it on even more goon-favorable conditions than it is laid on us now. Hence grabbing everything I've got and heading for Pure Blind with it is the way to go. You got so much freebies that it's not surprising everyone in this thread wants to burn Deklein, but people who think it'll happen by itself are deluding themselves. Lol |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6572
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 03:54:30 -
[3622] - Quote
Yeah, our downfall which was supposed to happen due to fatigue... didn't happen. So much for that huh.
But I'm sure this time, yes this time it will be different. sovlasers will finally end our 0.0 nightmare. You can do it guys! You have the power!! in your highslot module, the sovlaser will finally burn away the nightmare
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 04:29:14 -
[3623] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved
Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems
Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.
Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.
Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load.
Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.
#1 - Jury's out. The existing blocs have more than enough numbers to make any fight they care about a TIDI inducing game of chicken with trillions in assets on the field. Is that "fascinating"? Maybe, if you're impressed watching lots of pixels go boom slowly at great expense.
If it's a situation where there are many timers every day spread out so that the blocs can't cover them all with TIDI inducing super-blobs, and have to make choices, then it might get more interesting, with lots of little fights happening everywhere, and many entities vying for the upper hand.
#2 - Not really. It took us a little while to understand Dominion mechanics, but they are clear enough. This is clearer, but in some ways less clear. You can end up in situations now where the sov holder, the iHub owner, and the station owner could be different and potentially hostile entities.
#3 - Yes, I think it succeeds here. Since you don't have to grind structures, it will be a choice whether to escalate to bigger ships, not a necessity.
#4 - Yes. Weaponized boredom was a very good way to describe the current mechanics, and POS spam before them.
#5 - Yes, but. I can almost guarantee that you're going to have some poor souls who get tasked with grinding up indexes on alts in less desirable systems, not because they want to, but for the "greater good".
#6 - You at least got the server load part right. The largest entities in eve will have no trouble packing all of the systems in a constellation for a capture event that they care about, unless there are many happening at the same time. There won't be much in the way of geography based tactics unless the fight is relatively small.
#7 - Maybe, but will they? How long was FW around before it got a second pass?
Quote: So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now?
I don't think anyone enjoys grinding structures. The big fleet fights are probably as much fun now as they've ever been, without node crashes, desynchs and the like. They just aren't very accessible except to a select few. It's not like the days when Goons could tip the balance in the Russian's favor by showing up with 300 T-1 cruisers and lagging everyone out. Now you have to show up with hundreds of super--capitals, which you had to have sov in the first place to build and afford. That's a catch-22 that we need to find a way out of. |
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2608
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 04:30:10 -
[3624] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Does this plan address the goals properly? Maybe if you had bothered developing your reading comprehension you'd understand that what we've been saying amounts to "no, it ******* doesn't". But you're not interested in a discussion, you just want to throw your tag around like some kind of authority.
So it missed on all 8 or is there a specific one that you really think missed the mark?
Waving the forum tag around, eh? No, I am trying to engage in a rational discussion. To get to the heart of the concerns and then take them up the ladder. A few have pointed out the lack of any official voice here (forgetting that it is the weekend and Fozzie has Monday to Friday job.
Yeah, I get that some of you are mad, even I with my limited reading skills can manage to figure that out. Thing is I am curious as to what part of the goals you think have been missed. Are you saying now is better than what is coming? Or do you disagree with the very goals themselves?
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
307
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 04:31:05 -
[3625] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now?
Does this plan address the goals properly?
m
First off, yes, I think the goals were good ones. I also think that in the long run, N+1 will always be the key to winning. It still is here: if I can put more people into your space to get the command nodes than you can, I'll win.
However...
Quote:It comes down to the part of the dev blog everybody skimmed through.
No, it doesn't. See, we can all agree on the goals, and that's good. That's important. But the goals won't have an impact on the game nearly as much as the implementation of the goals will. And that's what we're discussing - with varying degrees of success in maintaining a polite conversation, perhaps, but it's what we're discussing: the implementation of those goals.
Another thing that matters is the perception of CCP listening to what's said here. For example:
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok?
'Tomorrow' was 3 days ago. That was 2015-03-04 23:30. I get that the guy's traveling, and he just did EDU - but obviously, he's got internet access from Oz. Just a quick 'hey, yeah, sorry guys, I'm swamped, I'll get on this when I get back to Iceland' would be better than complete radio silence. Even you have to agree with that, Mike - you're the one he's left holding the ball. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
360
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 04:35:42 -
[3626] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Yeah, our downfall which was supposed to happen due to fatigue... didn't happen. So much for that huh.
But I'm sure this time, yes this time it will be different. sovlasers will finally end our 0.0 nightmare. You can do it guys! You have the power!! in your highslot module, the sovlaser will finally burn away the nightmare Not trying to be a smart A here, just curious.
Do you think Goons could withstand a prolonged attack from a single alliance of the same size and determination, without armies of allies (from either side) being needed?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
7871
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 04:37:23 -
[3627] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Yeah, our downfall which was supposed to happen due to fatigue... didn't happen. So much for that huh.
But I'm sure this time, yes this time it will be different. sovlasers will finally end our 0.0 nightmare. You can do it guys! You have the power!! in your highslot module, the sovlaser will finally burn away the nightmare
To be fair, it was your alliance and others doing most of the crying. Thread after thread of EVE is dying/ quitting EVE/ unsubbing forever rants.
And now they're doing it again with this.
Seriously guys! You know you are not going anywhere. You'll adapt and keep on keepin' on. Like we all have at one time or another over the course of the many changes over the years.
Far be it from me, though, to suggest you stop and think things through before pounding keys. Not just null blocks, of course. Anyone who feels the game is ruined for whatever reason is current that week.
Half the reason I'm still subbed after eight years is the sheer entertainment I get from reading the rage from quitters that never actually quit.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
360
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 04:41:20 -
[3628] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now?
Does this plan address the goals properly?
m First off, yes, I think the goals were good ones. I also think that in the long run, N+1 will always be the key to winning. It still is here: if I can put more people into your space to get the command nodes than you can, I'll win. However... Quote:It comes down to the part of the dev blog everybody skimmed through. No, it doesn't. See, we can all agree on the goals, and that's good. That's important. But the goals won't have an impact on the game nearly as much as the implementation of the goals will. And that's what we're discussing - with varying degrees of success in maintaining a polite conversation, perhaps, but it's what we're discussing: the implementation of those goals. Another thing that matters is the perception of CCP listening to what's said here. For example: CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok? 'Tomorrow' was 3 days ago. That was 2015-03-04 23:30. I get that the guy's traveling, and he just did EDU - but obviously, he's got internet access from Oz. Just a quick 'hey, yeah, sorry guys, I'm swamped, I'll get on this when I get back to Iceland' would be better than complete radio silence. Even you have to agree with that, Mike - you're the one he's left holding the ball. Not defending CCP Fumble (Fozzie) one bit. If he is still in Aus, chances are his internet is crap and he can't post
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
112
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 04:41:46 -
[3629] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
That's Malcanis' law. Jenn's law is "No matter how many times reality proves Malcanis' law is true, people, including professional game developers, will forget the past 11 seconds later, like big ass human shaped gold fish"
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a.k.a learned helplessness. If it really is checkmate - the old and rich have the game by the nuts on a downhill pull, it's time to call it. Hand out trophies to the dozen people who "won Eve", wipe the server, and we can all start out in high sec belts in our frigs again. Knowing how it turned out this time, they can use some 20-20 hindsight starting at about RMR and make some different choices. I don't think we're there yet. Whatever they do, the "blue donut" has to go. I think these changes are a step in the right direction. Removing the local crutch would help too. Pulling high end moons into the new mechanic by making them iHub dependent would be a huge help too. Null needs to get a lot more dangerous, and dynamic. Malcanis' law is not an immutable law of the universe, unless the bulk of the player base believes that it is. If they believe that there's nothing that they can do, and they believe that whatever change occurs will only benefit the oligarchs, then yes, it's true. These mechanics invite a change to that thinking, but they don't require it. It'll be up to the players.
did you considered that the blue donut might just get bluer, and that in response to CCP's new mechanics well call it a day and jsut crush the attempted new entrants? and before you say butbutbut that will never happen, think again, we really are that vindictive. As an addition if were busy fighting every frig and cruiser that enters our space the big wars between the heavyweights just wont happen because were to busy crushing the new entrants. We have the organizational structures in place to ensure you never take a system as well, and are nto afraid to do it day in and day out even if its mindbogglingly boring and stupid. We keep it up for about 2 months guess what you will inevitably stop trying. The end result will be that when we eventually get around to invading each other (the 3 coalitions), we will compeltly **** over each others space and reset most of our sov, but you still wont be able to take it.
All this does is remove the incentive for the big boys to fight when what you want is the big boys to spend so much time fighting each other that they don't have time to fight you the little guy. Phoebe ironically did the same thing. There have been no wars of significance since phoebe purely because of this. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6573
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 04:48:42 -
[3630] - Quote
At least they nerfed the sov structure health. Made creating lots of timers for a small group easier, eh
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6573
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 04:50:47 -
[3631] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now?
Does this plan address the goals properly?
m First off, yes, I think the goals were good ones. I also think that in the long run, N+1 will always be the key to winning. It still is here: if I can put more people into your space to get the command nodes than you can, I'll win. However... I'd love to structure shoot, if you have to as well.
Please invade and drop tons of sbus in dek. I would love to log in and shoot them.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Gus Machado
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 04:58:36 -
[3632] - Quote
Free port is hilariously funny but good.
but the more i read this thread the more it resembles something i have seen before. The only difference being instead of having a ship circle a beacon in a plex killing npc to gain sov you have to activate an entosis link module on a sov based structure to do the same thing? and then for the second timer you get command nodes spread throughout the constellation (IE fw-plexes in different systems but the same constellation) and if the smaller entities do not fight now what makes you think they will fight after this change. lol we love content we crave content but ccp you give none of us incentive to keep sov. if you did you would see more fights because the invaders would want the benefits but right now this is turning into trolls online and its never going to get any better unless you give the smaller entities incentives to fight and the bigger sov holders incentives to stay and keep their sov truly this game will continue to degenerate into interceptors online. i mean why fly anything else.
that's my 2 cents at least.
ps: overpowered/non-catch able/with bubble immunity "lol"---------the greatest ship eve created "interceptors"
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 05:04:19 -
[3633] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:
did you considered that the blue donut might just get bluer, and that in response to CCP's new mechanics well call it a day and jsut crush the attempted new entrants? and before you say butbutbut that will never happen, think again, we really are that vindictive.
How is this different from now?
Quote: As an addition if were busy fighting every frig and cruiser that enters our space the big wars between the heavyweights just wont happen because were to busy crushing the new entrants. We have the organizational structures in place to ensure you never take a system as well, and are nto afraid to do it day in and day out even if its mindbogglingly boring and stupid.
I'm never one to discount nerd rage as a motivator, but, what matters over the long haul is where the fun is right? If it's mind-bogglingly stupid and boring for you to try to hang on to half the map, while it's fun as hell to make you try to hang on to it, well, even the most righteous of nerd rage has its limits.
Quote: We keep it up for about 2 months guess what you will inevitably stop trying. The end result will be that when we eventually get around to invading each other (the 3 coalitions), we will compeltly **** over each others space and reset most of our sov, but you still wont be able to take it.
If it's not fun, that's true. If making you chase your tail cheaply is fun, well, people are going to want to have that fun. We'll have to see whether it's fun or not.
Quote: All this does is remove the incentive for the big boys to fight when what you want is the big boys to spend so much time fighting each other that they don't have time to fight you the little guy. Phoebe ironically did the same thing. There have been no wars of significance since phoebe purely because of this.
I think B-R removed much of the incentive for the "big boys" to fight. Big boy fights got expensive. When I came back to the game I re-joined one of the "big boys" thinking they were going to head north for some "big boy fights". Did they? Nope. Headed south to kill some newbies in cruisers. Pass.
|
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
828
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 05:13:04 -
[3634] - Quote
While there has been allot of talk about individual mechanics and changes that need to happen to specific ones. Can major changes still be made?
The post at http://massivelyop.net/2015/03/08/eve-evolved-sovereignty-2-0-needs-some-work/ points out the gaminess of the main event mechanic. While I agree with the gamy thought put forth in the post. The fact that timers still are a focal point just gives Null more of the same. Is that what we want.
While standardizing the capture mechanic would be nice I think it needs to go the other way. Each major structure needs a different type of capture mechanic so that more things can be going on and clash together in interesting combinations.
If I was going to spend more time in null I need isk source for new ships and something thet I can do that contributes to the area each time I log in that can be tracked so its not an issue to see who is helping the cause or not.
The current mechanics don't help those too issues.
If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe.
|
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 05:24:06 -
[3635] - Quote
Gus Machado wrote:Free port is hilariously funny but good.
but the more i read this thread the more it resembles something i have seen before. The only difference being instead of having a ship circle a beacon in a plex killing npc to gain sov you have to activate an entosis link module on a sov based structure to do the same thing? and then for the second timer you get command nodes spread throughout the constellation (IE fw-plexes in different systems but the same constellation) and if the smaller entities do not fight now what makes you think they will fight after this change. lol we love content we crave content but ccp you give none of us incentive to keep sov. if you did you would see more fights because the invaders would want the benefits but right now this is turning into trolls online and its never going to get any better unless you give the smaller entities incentives to fight and the bigger sov holders incentives to stay and keep their sov truly this game will continue to degenerate into interceptors online. i mean why fly anything else.
that's my 2 cents at least.
ps: overpowered/non-catch able/with bubble immunity "lol"---------the greatest ship eve created "interceptors"
Not empty quoting. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6573
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 05:30:19 -
[3636] - Quote
davet517 wrote:I think B-R removed much of the incentive for the "big boys" to fight. Big boy fights got expensive. When I came back to the game I re-joined one of the "big boys" thinking they were going to head north for some "big boy fights". Did they? Nope. Headed south to kill some newbies in cruisers. Pass. Ooh, did you join vince draken's horde hoping to end our 0.0 dream?
Well, you can do so with sovlasers soon enough, though instead of newbies cruisers, you probably want some Heavy Assault Cruisers (Ishtar) or Strategic Cruisers (Tengu).
Or perhaps just interceptors, right?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 05:34:23 -
[3637] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Yeah, our downfall which was supposed to happen due to fatigue... didn't happen. So much for that huh.
But I'm sure this time, yes this time it will be different. sovlasers will finally end our 0.0 nightmare. You can do it guys! You have the power!! in your highslot module, the sovlaser will finally burn away the nightmare To be fair, it was your alliance and others doing most of the crying. Thread after thread of EVE is dying/ quitting EVE/ unsubbing forever rants. And now they're doing it again with this. Seriously guys! You know you are not going anywhere. You'll adapt and keep on keepin' on. Like we all have at one time or another over the course of the many changes over the years. Far be it from me, though, to suggest you stop and think things through before pounding keys. Not just null blocks, of course. Anyone who feels the game is ruined for whatever reason is current that week. Half the reason I'm still subbed after eight years is the sheer entertainment I get from reading the rage from quitters that never actually quit. Mr Epeen Nobody is upset because they think they'll be forced out of nullsec. They're upset because they believe the changes cheapen the game, and long-term are going to make things even less fun than they are now. That's why I and others in the null blocs were upset about Phoebe, and lo and behold that's what ended up happening.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6573
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 05:40:19 -
[3638] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Yeah, our downfall which was supposed to happen due to fatigue... didn't happen. So much for that huh.
But I'm sure this time, yes this time it will be different. sovlasers will finally end our 0.0 nightmare. You can do it guys! You have the power!! in your highslot module, the sovlaser will finally burn away the nightmare To be fair, it was your alliance and others doing most of the crying. Thread after thread of EVE is dying/ quitting EVE/ unsubbing forever rants. And now they're doing it again with this. Seriously guys! You know you are not going anywhere. You'll adapt and keep on keepin' on. Like we all have at one time or another over the course of the many changes over the years. Far be it from me, though, to suggest you stop and think things through before pounding keys. Not just null blocks, of course. Anyone who feels the game is ruined for whatever reason is current that week. Half the reason I'm still subbed after eight years is the sheer entertainment I get from reading the rage from quitters that never actually quit. Mr Epeen Nobody is upset because they think they'll be forced out of nullsec. They're upset because they believe the changes cheapen the game, and long-term are going to make things even less fun than they are now. That's why I and others in the null blocs were upset about Phoebe, and lo and behold that's what ended up happening. I'm just too fatigued to keep up with this...
Maybe after my posting fatigue has decayed a bit I will participate more.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Ischie
Isogen 5
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 06:45:30 -
[3639] - Quote
Thank you for taking bold steps to take EVE in a direction that is fresh and exciting. Please continue to resist the cries of people who would rather continue playing the same broken/stagnant way than try new things. Again, thanks for the bold, much needed moves.
The new sov system looks awesome fun! |
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 07:02:24 -
[3640] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Coalitions will die . . . or thrive. Tears are being shed, or lapped up. seriously, who cares? It comes down to the part of the dev blog everybody skimmed through. That first part where the goals were set out. NO WHERE in there was there any mention of the effect on specific alliances, coalitions, corps, or art appreciation societies. Reminder of the Goals. Quote:Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved
Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems
Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.
Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.
Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load.
Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE. So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now? Does this plan address the goals properly? m
They are all good goals! I like them a lot! But the suggested changes does not adress them good-enough.
But take #5 for example: what are the significant strategic benefits actually living in your space? Please explain! CCP has the notion that ratting is what drives nullsec economy. It is not. It was always about them moons, and now, it will be even more about them moons! You don't need sov to control the moons, and you definately do not have to live in the moon-systems to control the moons! You still need the largest super/titan/capital-fleets and the largets supportfleets to control them though. Status quo.
#4 and #3 The notion of the trollceptors has been discussed in this thread, and CCP has hinted that they might do something to limit the Entosis-trolling-fleets if they become a problem - which they will be. Still, the alliance that can field more people and more fleets will win the capture game; If one side can field 5 fleets with a total of 500 people and the other can field 100 people in 2 fleets - who will win? That will not change really!
What WILL change is that alliances will not fight over sov; it's of no value. Ratters will move elsewhere and the income from ratting does not affect the alliances in the first place.
It's R64 incomes that will affect the alliances. Its R64:s that alliance will fight over.
So make sov have an impact on ALL incomes from nullsec space, not just ratting etc. Make sov have an impact on the yield of the R64/32/16 moons aswell! This would generate conflicts, serious conflicts.
CEO Svea Rike
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6573
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 07:16:14 -
[3641] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:So make sov have an impact on ALL incomes from nullsec space, not just ratting etc. Make sov have an impact on the yield of the R64/32/16 moons aswell! This would generate conflicts, serious conflicts. So basically the lowsec moons PL has are safe from all the effects of sov ones. Also, NPC nullsec moons.
Hmm perhaps that would give them the advantage needed to end some sov nullsec people's 0.0 dream...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
361
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 07:17:17 -
[3642] - Quote
davet517 wrote: I think B-R removed much of the incentive for the "big boys" to fight. Big boy fights got expensive. When I came back to the game I re-joined one of the "big boys" thinking they were going to head north for some "big boy fights". Did they? Nope. Headed south to kill some newbies in cruisers. Pass.
The "Big Boys" with the big toys love nothing more than blowing each other up but the current meta of "Eve in slow motion" has all but removed the ability for that to happen. (A very deliberate move on CCP's part)
Hence, they headed south, in cruisers to blow up cruisers. That is called playing to the meta, using the tools CCP provide to wreak havoc at every turn. (The fundamental part of eve - DESTRUCTION OF OTHERS)
Is it what we all want? No it isn't but we are in the current situation because;
People used up time complaining about - "Damned PL hot dropped us with 500 supers" - "BL wrecked our day with all their titans while we were harmlessly shooting one of their pos's 60LY away" - "Goons, well Goons just wrecked everything"
Now we are faced with getting landed with one of the biggest mistakes CCP has ever thought up - and you decide to whine about some nooby cruisers getting blown up.
- - - - - - - - - Is it any wonder Eve is like it is.
I've done my share of writing in this thread and I know my ideas (gleaned from around 300 members of my corp and alliance) probably aren't the best but I do hope CCP at least considers them and some of the other ideas that have been put forward here.
The goals for the coming sov changes are very good - The plan of action to achieve them is not going to work in its current form.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
630
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 07:35:41 -
[3643] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:davet517 wrote: I think B-R removed much of the incentive for the "big boys" to fight. Big boy fights got expensive. When I came back to the game I re-joined one of the "big boys" thinking they were going to head north for some "big boy fights". Did they? Nope. Headed south to kill some newbies in cruisers. Pass.
The "Big Boys" with the big toys love nothing more than blowing each other up but the current meta of "Eve in slow motion" has all but removed the ability for that to happen. (A very deliberate move on CCP's part) Hence, they headed south, in cruisers to blow up cruisers. That is called playing to the meta, using the tools CCP provide to wreak havoc at every turn. (The fundamental part of eve - DESTRUCTION OF OTHERS) Is it what we all want? No it isn't but we are in the current situation because; People used up time complaining about - "Damned PL hot dropped us with 500 supers" - "BL wrecked our day with all their titans while we were harmlessly shooting one of their pos's 60LY away" - "Goons, well Goons just wrecked everything" Now we are faced with getting landed with one of the biggest mistakes CCP has ever thought up - and you decide to whine about some nooby cruisers getting blown up. - - - - - - - - - Is it any wonder Eve is like it is. I've done my share of writing in this thread and I know my ideas (gleaned from around 300 members of my corp and alliance) probably aren't the best but I do hope CCP at least considers them and some of the other ideas that have been put forward here. The goals for the coming sov changes are very good - The plan of action to achieve them is not going to work in its current form.
Whatever it is. We know the goons deserve it, don't we?
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
361
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 07:36:16 -
[3644] - Quote
Ischie wrote:Thank you for taking bold steps to take EVE in a direction that is fresh and exciting. Please continue to resist the cries of people who would rather continue playing the same broken/stagnant way than try new things. Again, thanks for the bold, much needed moves.
The new sov system looks awesome fun! You think the new sov mechanics look fun? I fear for the future of Eve.
- - - - - - - - - Mini games have NO place in sov wars.
"SOV WARS" is what it is called not bloody "reinforce the node", which sounds like it belongs in a kiddies game for 8 to 12 year olds.
How many nodes can you win in 4 hours - How many gold coins can Mario collect. Anything seem familiar here?
Who in their right mind wants to spend 4 hours a day collecting gold coins, especially when collecting those gold coins 1 day only means you have to go collect the same ones again the next - An all new concept for Eve no-one ever expected, boredom and repetition with the odd killmail thrown in for good measure.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
361
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 07:39:23 -
[3645] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:davet517 wrote: I think B-R removed much of the incentive for the "big boys" to fight. Big boy fights got expensive. When I came back to the game I re-joined one of the "big boys" thinking they were going to head north for some "big boy fights". Did they? Nope. Headed south to kill some newbies in cruisers. Pass.
The "Big Boys" with the big toys love nothing more than blowing each other up but the current meta of "Eve in slow motion" has all but removed the ability for that to happen. (A very deliberate move on CCP's part) Hence, they headed south, in cruisers to blow up cruisers. That is called playing to the meta, using the tools CCP provide to wreak havoc at every turn. (The fundamental part of eve - DESTRUCTION OF OTHERS) Is it what we all want? No it isn't but we are in the current situation because; People used up time complaining about - "Damned PL hot dropped us with 500 supers" - "BL wrecked our day with all their titans while we were harmlessly shooting one of their pos's 60LY away" - "Goons, well Goons just wrecked everything" Now we are faced with getting landed with one of the biggest mistakes CCP has ever thought up - and you decide to whine about some nooby cruisers getting blown up. - - - - - - - - - Is it any wonder Eve is like it is. I've done my share of writing in this thread and I know my ideas (gleaned from around 300 members of my corp and alliance) probably aren't the best but I do hope CCP at least considers them and some of the other ideas that have been put forward here. The goals for the coming sov changes are very good - The plan of action to achieve them is not going to work in its current form. Whatever it is. We know the goons deserve it, don't we? As far as I'm concerned Goonies deserve nothing more and nothing less than everyone else who choose to make sov nul their home. If my post came across as Goon bashing I apologize, that was not my intention.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6574
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 07:47:38 -
[3646] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Ischie wrote:The new sov system looks awesome fun! You think the new sov mechanics look fun? I fear for the future of Eve. - - - - - - - - - Mini games have NO place in sov wars. "SOV WARS" is what it is called not bloody "reinforce the node", which sounds like it belongs in a kiddies game for 8 to 12 year olds. How many nodes can you win in 4 hours - How many gold coins can Mario collect. Anything seem familiar here? Who in their right mind wants to spend 4 hours a day collecting gold coins, especially when collecting those gold coins 1 day only means you have to go collect the same ones again the next - An all new concept for Eve no-one ever expected, boredom and repetition with the odd killmail thrown in for good measure. I admit the way we sov war now is called "reinforce the sov structure"
How many timers can you create in comparison to what the enemy can save.
Who in their right mind wants to spend 24 hours a day collecting timers, especially when collecting those timers means you have to go for a second timer usually...
An all new concept for Eve no-one ever expected, boredom and repetition with the odd** (sov structure) killmail thrown in for good measure.
**Though really SBU killmails are very common.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2736
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 07:48:49 -
[3647] - Quote
Lupe Meza wrote:Zakks wrote:As a newer player (2months), I am ready to quit after my sub ends this month. There is no place for, how you say, 'scrubs' in this game. I have never seen such a sense of entitlement by a group of veteran players! Having read some of this topic has done nothing to change my thoughts. This game will die, because of your status quo thinking, unless the game developers flip you the bird and shake things up. I mean really change it big time. But you will cry and moan about it, and then try and destroy it for everyone. Because you can.
So come and wreck my game, if that what gets your jollies. You really should be ashamed. I wouldn't take all the bluster too seriously. It is just the usual propaganda. Whenever vets say "think of the new players" just automatically roll your eyes. "Who wants to live in null"? "Who even wants sov now". "We'll destroy high sec". Yadda yadda. CCP is clearly striving to make a product that is inclusive and not merely a playground for 10 year players or mega coalitions; but one for people that want to play a sandbox game like this but can't devote 8 hours a day to a video game because they have no lif....er, I mean are super successful IRL and have oodles of cash and free time on hand so playing from their yachts all day is no problem. Any good MMO that is around a while should always remember the people that put them in the position they are in and stuck with them. But never to the point where it becomes catering to self serving rhetoric and entitlement that is to the detriment of the product. Maybe take a look in a year or so and see how the landscape and culture shifts if at all. I'd encourage you to give it another shot though.
Thing is , most of those vets you and others are complaining about are not even the old day vets like me but the kind that came in halfway of eve's lifecycle and they tend to behave like lill bratts who can only see a change for the good when it benefits THEIR gameplay.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6574
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 07:50:26 -
[3648] - Quote
Let's just go back to the days of remote aoe doomsday titans
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 08:03:09 -
[3649] - Quote
I would like to change my mind on this subject.
I am actually for these sov changes. After havent listend to podcast from Crosiing Zebra(Grath and PGL) and the meta show with Mittnes and Co. + PGL. I actually support the changes.
My hope is that CCP will expand the on the whole empire building and allow players to customize their sov to suit their needs. Make the space feel like your home.
In regards to the super nerf, which Fozzie talked about at EVE Down under, they are not set in stone yeat, but it is about time that CCP got rid of the supers and titans, which they said themself they should have done years ago. Perhaps it was also time to remove the carriers ability to carry fighters and drones? (Disclaimer Aeon owner)
Stations are in the same bad place as supers and titans. Atm 42% of all 0.0 systems has a station. It is about time that stations was made destructible. Just have their content sent to the nearest NPC station, or leave a wreck that expires after a year, so ppl can pickup their ****.
Stargates should also be player build and destructible by players.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
861
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 08:27:00 -
[3650] - Quote
Drogo Drogos wrote:playerbuild module in space: "Status Effect module" This module can set to an effect to give positive or negative effects for fleets entering your sov, this forces enemy to fight your style and your doctrines with buffs, failure to fight in the ships the sov holder enforces gives your fleet a great disadvantage as in wormholes.
Smaller entitys can now force attackers to weird ship doctrines were the defender has trained for and are far more expirienced in then the attackers.
That's literally the worst idea I've EVER READ on these forums.
EVER.
Well played, well played.
|
|
Anthar Thebess
953
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 08:44:48 -
[3651] - Quote
Can we also remove standings? What you have in your alliance ... is blue , every thing else neut.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 09:04:32 -
[3652] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Ischie wrote:Thank you for taking bold steps to take EVE in a direction that is fresh and exciting. Please continue to resist the cries of people who would rather continue playing the same broken/stagnant way than try new things. Again, thanks for the bold, much needed moves.
The new sov system looks awesome fun! You think the new sov mechanics look fun? I fear for the future of Eve. - - - - - - - - - Mini games have NO place in sov wars. "SOV WARS" is what it is called not bloody "reinforce the node", which sounds like it belongs in a kiddies game for 8 to 12 year olds. How many nodes can you win in 4 hours - How many gold coins can Mario collect. Anything seem familiar here? Who in their right mind wants to spend 4 hours a day collecting gold coins, especially when collecting those gold coins 1 day only means you have to go collect the same ones again the next - An all new concept for Eve no-one ever expected, boredom and repetition with the odd killmail thrown in for good measure. If we wanted idiotic capture the flag mechanics we'd be in Factional Warfare.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 09:11:15 -
[3653] - Quote
delayed local \ WH style in 0.0 will collapse intel channel. i cannot imagine the flow of a evening without local. Covert cyno\bridge will become totally invisible... is too different from this gamestyle that i cannot figure.
I think there is no need i explain the problem of cloacky camper is NOT the bad\useless dps of a single t3\bomber but the covert-cyno in tha face they put on you after pointing retards\ratter\hauler.
--
as, even small, ceo of SOV holding corp i can assure CCP no one will care nothing about anoms\ratting. Every single conflict i did in years is about moons.
Providence in system\occupacy\abitants is one of the most densly populated 0.0 and the anoms are quite free and confortably usable but, as i told before, no one of ceo, FC and exec care nothing about doing a sov war for let grunts to mine\rat. il all other region with more space and less people i think situation is even better.
The potential end of rental empire, is ofc, welcome because they are only a exploit/rule-playng the mechanincs of eveonline.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
215
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 09:11:18 -
[3654] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:You think the new sov mechanics look fun? I fear for the future of Eve.
- - - - - - - - - Mini games have NO place in sov wars. What do you think the old POS sov mechanics were? |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 09:15:24 -
[3655] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:You think the new sov mechanics look fun? I fear for the future of Eve.
- - - - - - - - - Mini games have NO place in sov wars. What do you think the old POS sov mechanics were? You're quoting the person that I was quoting as me. In any case, I wasn't around back then. I don't actually know much about how pre-Dominion sov worked. I started playing just a month or so before Incarna.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
215
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 09:26:16 -
[3656] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:You're quoting the person that I was quoting as me. Turns out I'm lazy AND crap at fixing quotes. Who knew.
Primary This Rifter wrote:In any case, I wasn't around back then. I don't actually know much about how pre-Dominion sov worked. I started playing just a few weeks before Incarna, and only got involved in sov warfare just before Inferno. TL/DR: you could erect 5 POSes pr day pr corp (or alliance, but I'm fairly certain it's per corp), the alliance with the most POSes of the biggest size (so if someone has 49 medium and the other guy has 1 large, the other guy wins, unless the first guy swaps 2 out for larges) for a week has sov.
There's a lot more to it than that, but it was basically a minigame there as well. |
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 09:30:30 -
[3657] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:You're quoting the person that I was quoting as me. Turns out I'm lazy AND crap at fixing quotes. Who knew. Primary This Rifter wrote:In any case, I wasn't around back then. I don't actually know much about how pre-Dominion sov worked. I started playing just a few weeks before Incarna, and only got involved in sov warfare just before Inferno. TL/DR: you could erect 5 POSes pr day pr corp (or alliance, but I'm fairly certain it's per corp), the alliance with the most POSes of the biggest size (so if someone has 49 medium and the other guy has 1 large, the other guy wins, unless the first guy swaps 2 out for larges) for a week has sov. There's a lot more to it than that, but it was basically a minigame there as well.
It was a way to drive the logistical ppl crazy.
But the system scaled. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
215
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 09:42:41 -
[3658] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:It was a way to drive the logistical ppl crazy.
But the system scaled. Indeed, but the logistics people would be slightly less crazy now, what with all the tools we've been given after dominion sov came into play.
And it not only scaled, it allowed for a more back and forth type of war than dominion sov does, and I think the new one'll do something similar. I don't know how bad the things people are naysaying about it will turn, but I'm sure we'll soon find out. |
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 10:02:47 -
[3659] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Quote:Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle. Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space. Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space. Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load. Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE. So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now? Does this plan address the goals properly?
Okay, just to answer this proper question in here:
#1 - I think many people have stated in here just how easy it's going to be abuse mechanics this, especially with the low fitting requirements and a 250km range on the entosis module. Clearing 10+ nodes per each structure is also a bit too heavy and not "enjoyable". #2 - it is but there are still some unanswered questions (but just minor ones) #3 - this system gets rid of most "larger" ship demands but it puts even more emphasis on the more pilots aspect. The more pilots you have, the more territory and nodes you can cover. #4 - it'll reduce the time for seriously unused space - for contested space where people live in...10 nodes per each structure, up to 42 minutes capture time per node, spread over systems. Do the math, this is still going to take hours. #5 - the indices help, yep - although it would be good to see bigger boni to industry/pve and a different system for anoms in 0.0 in general #6 - yep this is true and probably the best part, although it'd be better to split it up in less nodes. #7 - this is somewhat redundant, people WILL adapt in one way or another, even if adapting means quitting. Nobody knows what "future" plans CCP has for 0.0, so we can't answer this.
The problems that people outlined are not tied to these goals directly, but the ramifications of these changes and the things that won't be changed.
# top issue - the entosis link and its current mechanic.
besides that: #1 - Supercapitals are rendered completely useless, with the notion of "we will look at them in future changes"... wow, helps current super pilots a lot. #2 - the issue of n+1 still exists and the sheer number of pilots will still prevail. #3 - the issue of prime time in a global game and different TZ neighbours #4 - premature freeport stations - station games and TIDI, seriously not a good idea #5 - this system encourages to keep your neighbours blue #6 - fatigue could be softened with these changes #7 - include a system that "regenerates" the status of Sov if the attackers don't show up to actually take the systems #8 - the issue that a lonely pilot in a frigate can claim sov, make it a team effort |
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 10:04:25 -
[3660] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Lurifax wrote:It was a way to drive the logistical ppl crazy.
But the system scaled. Indeed, but the logistics people would be slightly less crazy now, what with all the tools we've been given after dominion sov came into play. And it not only scaled, it allowed for a more back and forth type of war than dominion sov does, and I think the new one'll do something similar. I don't know how bad the things people are naysaying about it will turn, but I'm sure we'll soon find out.
Whilst there has been improvements in POS mechanics I'd still go pretty insane (and I had the pleasure of looking after Sov towers many moons ago). There was more SOV movement back then but I suspect that was more down to alliance and coalition sizes more than sov mechanics. Ultimately you need to come up with a system that pushes the bigger alliances into deeper null sec and makes it increasingly difficult to hold larger space whilst simultaneously freeing up near empire null for the smaller alliances and keeping it reasonably profitable. There's zero point creating a system where the larger entities sit close to empire and hold deeper null sec simply because smaller entities cant get/live there due to logistics.
Quite honestly you can't do that with a change to the SOV mechsnics, that's a total revamp of everything null sec, moons, anoms, POSes, stations, income etc. |
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
130
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 10:05:46 -
[3661] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Yeah, our downfall which was supposed to happen due to fatigue... didn't happen. So much for that huh.
But I'm sure this time, yes this time it will be different. sovlasers will finally end our 0.0 nightmare. You can do it guys! You have the power!! in your highslot module, the sovlaser will finally burn away the nightmare To be fair, it was your alliance and others doing most of the crying. Thread after thread of EVE is dying/ quitting EVE/ unsubbing forever rants. And now they're doing it again with this. Seriously guys! You know you are not going anywhere. You'll adapt and keep on keepin' on. Like we all have at one time or another over the course of the many changes over the years. Far be it from me, though, to suggest you stop and think things through before pounding keys. Not just null blocks, of course. Anyone who feels the game is ruined for whatever reason is current that week. Half the reason I'm still subbed after eight years is the sheer entertainment I get from reading the rage from quitters that never actually quit. Mr Epeen
Goontacos don't need to adapt. They are getting a system already perfectly suited for them and nobody else, credit to CCP Lapdog. The only thing they are crying about is that the package it arrives in doesn't state this openly enough, but they aren't fooling anyone.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 10:25:15 -
[3662] - Quote
The change proposed by CCP has a couple of key aspects at a strategic level which change the entry level barrier.
- Removal of SBU's, first of all defensive SBU's were a pain to take down, second thing their cost - Benefit to small alliances
- Removal of large EHP pools which required Supers and Titans - Benefit to small alliances
- Ability to RF cheaply - benefit to small alliances as well as large alliances that can go grief large area
- Spliting up of combat into different locations, this enables a small entity to wear then down by picking off - benefit to small alliances
- At the moment there are lots of systems held by a TCU, or a TCU and IHUB with the threat of a all out defence on the last timer of the IHUB and no one in them. With the change those TCU only systems are easy to take, those with the IHUB are as easy to take - benefit to small alliances
The advantages that large alliances have on their defence of anything that they decide to defend is still there, plus of course their ability to splat people, still useful those supers and titans for end game escalation, super useless what bull that is.
On the basis of the above I call bull on Malcannis law and suggest that this change is a step in the right direction, just because a load of bored people can go and be bored reinforcing everything in interceptors makes no real difference.
Small alliances are currently holding sov and have done so in the past, this just makes it a lot easier to grab sov in systems that the large entities will no longer have the will to defend because they will hate being force to defend systems that they don't even want, whereas before they could just use the threat of a large drop to save on the last timer, making it not worthwhile to even try.
Smart small alliances will rf multiple systems, they were then engage to take their target system, if the enemy brings too much they will try to pick off one of the fleets that is tasked with winning one of the 5 active nodes. Rinse and repeat.
Conclusion, yes the large entities can use this, but the smaller entities now have a guerilla level impact on sov space.
So Jenn you can quote Malcannis law until you go blue in the face, come out with your own simpering law, but the reality is that a small entity has had its barrier to taking sov reduced.
Next part is holding sov and using sov.
Holding sov will be difficult and a pain, the simple fact is that IHUB's and stations will be trolled to death and back, so be it, if you cannot defend them then thats an issue. I can see why Provi bloc are upset, they will be everyones whipping boys and they know it.
If you want to gain and hold sov as a small alliance just go the TCU and POS route, that will enable you to have some fun, but understand it will be lost at some point. You should also bear in mind that any good systems will be taken unless they are out on a limb, so making ISK from your low truesec system is not going to happen, its there primarily because you can and want to.
This is where the issues really lie, Eve is a griefing game, the art of stopping people from playing, and these changes enable those people to grief sov easier, in fact Fozzie is about to add to that with his suggestion of delayed local, so no hope there I am afraid, suck that up guys along with instant warping interceptors and anoms that don't need to be probed, and D-scan immunity, as well as old staples like AFK cloaking.
So yes those people who say no value in having sov are correct.
In affect there will be some people who will take sov to get their name on the map and hold it for as long as no one takes exception to them being there, they can go in light and have fun and there will be people doing that because its an end game goal to own sov. I for one will not try to make any ISK in that single system I intend to grab, I intend to get some kills there, maybe get a group of people to use the system to generate fights, but nope ISK generation will be in hisec.
And that is the assessment of someone who has spent the majority of his time in 0.0, however this change is worth it as it lowers the entry barrier in spite of the added griefing that will definitely occur.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
362
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 10:46:28 -
[3663] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:I would like to change my mind on this subject.
I am actually for these sov changes. After havent listend to podcast from Crosiing Zebra(Grath and PGL) and the meta show with Mittnes and Co. + PGL. I actually support the changes.
My hope is that CCP will expand the on the whole empire building and allow players to customize their sov to suit their needs. Make the space feel like your home.
In regards to the super nerf, which Fozzie talked about at EVE Down under, they are not set in stone yeat, but it is about time that CCP got rid of the supers and titans, which they said themself they should have done years ago. Perhaps it was also time to remove the carriers ability to carry fighters and drones? (Disclaimer Aeon owner)
Stations are in the same bad place as supers and titans. Atm 42% of all 0.0 systems has a station. It is about time that stations was made destructible. Just have their content sent to the nearest NPC station, or leave a wreck that expires after a year, so ppl can pickup their ****.
Stargates should also be player build and destructible by players.
So you will after all be satisfied with shooting the odd Entosis fit ship and doing a round robin of constellation wide node shooting 4 hours a day 7 days a week for the next ?? years, to hold your sov ?
Funny I though eve was about engaging game play for the masses, not mini games for the few.
The MMO is leaving Eve, it will now be a contest of mini games for the few who have the will (and 4 hours a day to spare) to carry out the repetitive.
How ever it is packaged and presented, it is still nothing more than repetitive grinding of the same thing day after day. If you have 12 to 14 hours a day to play eve this is a great change - Defend your space for 4 hours, go attack someone else's for 4 hours and a few hours to make isk, buy ships and modules, do logistics and all the other day to day things that allow you to do the 4 hours of protecting your space.
I find it interesting that Eve players have no life other than Eve, you are all happy to commit so much time to it. I do feel sorry for your families and anyone else you used to interact with. Once these changes hit, Eve and work will be all you have time for.
This is quite smart from a financial point of view for CCP - Less time to make isk = more plex sold to buy ships etc.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Sougiro Seta
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:13:38 -
[3664] - Quote
We're facing some dangerous changes here that are really pointing towards the destruction of the playerbase.
First of all, this sov changes are gonna be made to comply with people who actually never/don't live in sov null. This is bad, as the people who's mostly interested in sov changes is the sovnull player base, not the "spectators". EVE Online is a sandbox, where different gameplays are possible, but with this changes you're trying to turn sovnull into factional warfare 2.0 as a lot of players have already said. That's a terrible mistake, players living in sov don't like factional warfare. If they would, they'll be grinding fw or raiding small gangs around npc null.
In this past weekend metashow The Mittani declared himself an "empire builder", and I guess the same would apply to the leaders of any alliance. This is an interesting point as it directly guides us to what most of the player base wanna be imo: empire citizens. With different roles, different aspirations, but common goals. Sov null is, should be, based towards the creation of player-owned empires. It's not because I want to, nor because I like to, it's because that's the motivation behind most of the players out there: be part of something bigger. A group with an identity, sharing objectives, joining big spacefleets that make you feel part of a group. This changes are a checkmate to the playerbase motivations.
On the other hand on the same metashow, as well as later Grath, progodlegend and many others, leadership from different alliances have said that they like all this changes. They think this is gonna reinvigorate the game, etc. I even remember reading on evenews Fozzie saying that nullsec income is amazinghuejtrillions there's no need to change anything. Imo they're wrong. They're, obviously, not only intelligent but game-wise people but, as in real politics, sometimes even with the best intention you can lose your connection with the people who is under you. I hang out on ts/mumble with people from different corporations, backgrounds and motivations, but I'm sure that most of the people is not liking the changes, if still noticed, and that the new mechanics are going to push a lot of people out of nullsec or the game. Most people is just loggin in to rat for a while, earn isk, and go fighting with their alliance, they don't log into forums or even realize which are the changes to come. If citizens, aka sovnull residents, would've wanted small warfare: they would be living in lowsec. If they've wanted delayed/no local: they would be living in whs. If anybody thinks line people, who's limited main playtime matches his alliance vulnerability window, is going to stay on null: no, they won't.
If you think a regular guy ratting on VNI or an Ishtar, making ~50M/h is able to sustain the harass rythm interceptor online(aka scylla) is bringing, you're wrong. Just think of all the people whose daily playtime is gonna be 100% focused on defending sov... it's not about people liking/disliking pvp, it's about total madness.
__________________________
To Fozzie:
I'd really like to take a look at those metrics which state that nullsec income is alright as it is. Really. I'm gonna present you the metrics, aka try it yourself.
A casual lvl4 mission runner in highsec makes ~50M/h. A proficient mission blitzer make >75M/h on average, up to >100M/h if he learns to run burners.
An incursion runner goes from ~85M/h, on the worst of goodwilling but unskilled WTM fleet, up to >150M/h on best TVP/ISN fleets.
A greatly-skilled ishtar pilot makes 72M/h PRE-taxes, aka ~60M/h. Given that most line pilots income source is this one, where the hell is the nullsec income is alright as it is?
Those are not metrics, nor stats, nor opinions. This is real EVE man, wake up. This is the same people you wanna make dance around constelations everyday for 4 hours because "they make big money hehe". Your stats are biased, if not negligently worked out. There are pilots, like me, who multibox carriers and whose income is "great" (lmao at risk-reward) but you're laughing at the majority of guys out there, in nullsec, sustaining your game.
About supers, as a former entrepreneur I can't think of a better business policy than laughing on your most loyal and higher investment clients. Everything else has already be said.
If you stick to your late proposals, and way of thinking, EVE Online is doomed.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
861
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:16:48 -
[3665] - Quote
What income would the afktar get if he was using a boat as pimped as a mission blitzer......?
Care to take a whack at mission income in an afktar?
I thought not.
Also a massive LOL that you're taking alliance taxes off their income and somehow rolling that into a nullsec problem. |
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:17:39 -
[3666] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Lurifax wrote:I would like to change my mind on this subject.
I am actually for these sov changes. After havent listend to podcast from Crosiing Zebra(Grath and PGL) and the meta show with Mittnes and Co. + PGL. I actually support the changes.
My hope is that CCP will expand the on the whole empire building and allow players to customize their sov to suit their needs. Make the space feel like your home.
In regards to the super nerf, which Fozzie talked about at EVE Down under, they are not set in stone yeat, but it is about time that CCP got rid of the supers and titans, which they said themself they should have done years ago. Perhaps it was also time to remove the carriers ability to carry fighters and drones? (Disclaimer Aeon owner)
Stations are in the same bad place as supers and titans. Atm 42% of all 0.0 systems has a station. It is about time that stations was made destructible. Just have their content sent to the nearest NPC station, or leave a wreck that expires after a year, so ppl can pickup their ****.
Stargates should also be player build and destructible by players.
So you will after all be satisfied with shooting the odd Entosis fit ship and doing a round robin of constellation wide node shooting 4 hours a day 7 days a week for the next ?? years, to hold your sov ? Funny I though eve was about engaging game play for the masses, not mini games for the few. The MMO is leaving Eve, it will now be a contest of mini games for the few who have the will (and 4 hours a day to spare) to carry out the repetitive. How ever it is packaged and presented, it is still nothing more than repetitive grinding of the same thing day after day. If you have 12 to 14 hours a day to play eve this is a great change - Defend your space for 4 hours, go attack someone else's for 4 hours and a few hours to make isk, buy ships and modules, do logistics and all the other day to day things that allow you to do the 4 hours of protecting your space. I find it interesting that Eve players have no life other than Eve, you are all happy to commit so much time to it. I do feel sorry for your families and anyone else you used to interact with. Once these changes hit, Eve and work will be all you have time for. Yeah why not make stations destructible, just another notch in the pole that says, small alliance don't deserve sov. This is quite smart from a financial point of view for CCP - Less time to make isk = more plex sold to buy ships etc.
It is clear that you dont like the new mechanic. I am pretty sure, that I will spend less time on taking/defending sov, then the last time we had a sov war. Eve has many activities that does not revolve around sov. If you dont like do something els.
Destroying stations is needed because soon every system will have one. This takes away from the sandbox element since they cannot be removed and we are left with station types that were chosen in another era of sov mechanic. |
Sougiro Seta
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:19:56 -
[3667] - Quote
afkalt wrote:What income would the afktar get if he was using a boat as pimped as a mission blitzer......?
Care to take a whack at mission income in an afktar?
I thought not.
Also a massive LOL that you're taking alliance taxes off their income and somehow rolling that into a nullsec problem.
30M ticks pretaxes on a Kronos/Vindicator, aka 76,5M/h post taxes. Shut up john snow.
|
rsantos
Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:20:10 -
[3668] - Quote
So many tears! <3 You Foozie! |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
862
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:29:06 -
[3669] - Quote
Sougiro Seta wrote:afkalt wrote:What income would the afktar get if he was using a boat as pimped as a mission blitzer......?
Care to take a whack at mission income in an afktar?
I thought not.
Also a massive LOL that you're taking alliance taxes off their income and somehow rolling that into a nullsec problem. 30M ticks pretaxes on a Kronos/Vindicator, aka 76,5M/h post taxes. Shut up john snow.
"Dear CCP. My alliance taxes are too high. Buff bounties please."
I suppose if you were taxed at 100%, this would also be someone elses problem?
Also if your ishtars can get near marauder income - maybe you want to take some lessons from "those filthy highsec carebears". Apparently they're better at it than you. A lot better.
We've done this to death in the thread already. Respectable null sec alliances have massive SRP/subsidies funded by.....null income. I know, I know that you guys don't consider SRP/subsidies "income" but that's because you're being obtuse about it and not indicative of a problem. |
Sougiro Seta
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:35:11 -
[3670] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Sougiro Seta wrote:afkalt wrote:What income would the afktar get if he was using a boat as pimped as a mission blitzer......?
Care to take a whack at mission income in an afktar?
I thought not.
Also a massive LOL that you're taking alliance taxes off their income and somehow rolling that into a nullsec problem. 30M ticks pretaxes on a Kronos/Vindicator, aka 76,5M/h post taxes. Shut up john snow. "Dear CCP. My alliance taxes are too high. Buff bounties please." I suppose if you were taxed at 100%, this would also be someone elses problem?
People like you deserve answers that drive directly to a forum ban :) Dear CCP, even with a perfect character and flying a shiny ship a nullsec pilot make the same money than a mission runner, with delayed local and 4h harass-party a day. That's a better statement john snow.
|
|
Jessy Andersteen
AdAstra. Beach Club
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:39:19 -
[3671] - Quote
Sougiro Seta wrote:We're facing some dangerous changes here that are really pointing towards the destruction of the playerbase.
First of all, this sov changes are gonna be made to comply with people who actually never/don't live in sov null. This is bad, as the people who's mostly interested in sov changes is the sovnull player base, not the "spectators". EVE Online is a sandbox, where different gameplays are possible, but with this changes you're trying to turn sovnull into factional warfare 2.0 as a lot of players have already said. That's a terrible mistake, players living in sov don't like factional warfare. If they would, they'll be grinding fw or raiding small gangs around npc null.
Goon confuse CFC and player data base. Check the metrics! And i'm agree with the change. I lived in 0.0 later. And get bored lik all people i know by the sov warfare where nobody can win against goon, because of METRICS. The only way to get something in the souv is to pray the "Lords of Null Sec" and pay rent. That's not a SAND BOX.
Sougiro Seta wrote: In this past weekend metashow The Mittani declared himself an "empire builder", and I guess the same would apply to the leaders of any alliance. This is an interesting point as it directly guides us to what most of the player base wanna be imo: empire citizens. With different roles, different aspirations, but common goals. Sov null is, should be, based towards the creation of player-owned empires. It's not because I want to, nor because I like to, it's because that's the motivation behind most of the players out there: be part of something bigger. A group with an identity, sharing objectives, joining big spacefleets that make you feel part of a group. This changes are a checkmate to the playerbase motivations.
Game over. Because it's "PAT" with the blue donuts and super fleets. The game is locked and nothing new could happen.
Sougiro Seta wrote: To Fozzie:
I'd really like to take a look at those metrics which state that nullsec income is alright as it is. Really. I'm gonna present you the metrics, aka try it yourself.
A casual lvl4 mission runner in highsec makes ~50M/h. A proficient mission blitzer make >75M/h on average, up to >100M/h if he learns to run burners.
An incursion runner goes from ~85M/h, on the worst of goodwilling but unskilled WTM fleet, up to >150M/h on best TVP/ISN fleets.
A greatly-skilled ishtar pilot makes 72M/h PRE-taxes, aka ~60M/h. Given that most line pilots income source is this one, where the hell is the nullsec income is alright as it is?
Those are not metrics, nor stats, nor opinions. This is real EVE man, wake up. This is the same people you wanna make dance around constelations everyday for 4 hours because "they make big money hehe".
What about Null sec incomes? What about CFC incomes? We aren't idiot dude. Why did u forget to give metrics about the AFK skynet carrier for exemple? U try to convice us that renters pay for a low isk plan?
Goon tears, best tears. |
Sougiro Seta
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:44:30 -
[3672] - Quote
Whoever doesn't get that my post is not about the CFC/N3/whatever but about nullsec alliance's line members w/o carriers, and supers, and so on, really needs help. |
Drogo Drogos
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:52:38 -
[3673] - Quote
I think no matter how you look at all these changes it will cost CCP a fcton of subs.
From Super pilots to burned out nullsec players getting fed up with constand defence fleets day in day out.
Multiple accounts will be closed to as there is no need for cyno alts or multiple ratting accounts to farm for expensive ratting fits / supers / titans.
I start to wonder how many dev's need to pack their bags this time next year with all the subscription losses that might be comming after June.
And not to mention Star Citizen that is comming along. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
862
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:53:10 -
[3674] - Quote
Sougiro Seta wrote:afkalt wrote:Sougiro Seta wrote:afkalt wrote:What income would the afktar get if he was using a boat as pimped as a mission blitzer......?
Care to take a whack at mission income in an afktar?
I thought not.
Also a massive LOL that you're taking alliance taxes off their income and somehow rolling that into a nullsec problem. 30M ticks pretaxes on a Kronos/Vindicator, aka 76,5M/h post taxes. Shut up john snow. "Dear CCP. My alliance taxes are too high. Buff bounties please." I suppose if you were taxed at 100%, this would also be someone elses problem? People like you deserve answers that drive directly to a forum ban :) Dear CCP, even with a perfect character and flying a shiny ship a nullsec pilot make the same money than a mission runner, with delayed local and 4h harass-party a day. That's a better statement john snow.
Thank god then, that you have alliance income shared out. How many moons getting mined in high sec again?
Oh wait, that's right. That income is to be ignored because it doesn't suit you, right? |
Jessy Andersteen
AdAstra. Beach Club
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:56:21 -
[3675] - Quote
Sougiro Seta wrote:Whoever doesn't get that my post is not about the CFC/N3/whatever but about nullsec alliance's line members w/o carriers, and supers, and so on, really needs help.
Dude: i lived in Null sec NPC and conquerable: stop cry about "poor" isk income in null sec. I know what a drake can do in a belt. i know what a barge can get in null sec. i know what a good BS can get in anoms. And dotlan show that there is more risk in JITA than in nullsec. Metrics.
CCP are not stupid: they can compute it with a simple DATABASE REQUEST. BTW, The metrics with the inflation shows that people have too many isk. And they know that's in NULL SEC BEAR POCKETS. When we kill farmers in an anom in null sec, the KM show it too. Too many incomes, not enough risk. Check Zkillboard.
PS: WTB Archon 400m |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 11:56:48 -
[3676] - Quote
Quote: How ever it is packaged and presented, it is still nothing more than repetitive grinding of the same thing day after day. If you have 12 to 14 hours a day to play eve this is a great change - Defend your space for 4 hours, go attack someone else's for 4 hours and a few hours to make isk, buy ships and modules, do logistics and all the other day to day things that allow you to do the 4 hours of protecting your space.
However it's packaged and presented, that has always been what sov warfare is like in Eve. It's a grinding, life-on-hold contest of wills that usually goes to those with way more commitment to a game than is probably healthy to have. When was it ever not like that? This latest iteration doesn't change that. The only thing it changes is the barrier to entry.
I'm sympathetic to some of the posters here who have invested countless hours in building infrastructure and empire. I've done some of that myself, and I know that rug-pulled-out-from-under-you feeling. But, only having two entities in the game who can legitimately contest sov continuing to amass insurmountable war-chests by virtue of either holding or renting out the entire map is not good for the future of the sov game.
These changes might not change that. Sov warfare in Eve may have played itself out. I think the ability to threaten sov with something less than a super-cap blob will help, but only if the PvP capable entities in NPC null and low-sec are interested in taking a shot at it, or current coalition members decide that its more fun to break away and be an attacker, than a defender. They might not. If not, this will change nothing.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 12:02:36 -
[3677] - Quote
Sougiro Seta wrote:Whoever doesn't get that my post is not about the CFC/N3/whatever but about nullsec alliance's line members w/o carriers, and supers, and so on, really needs help.
Your casual mission runners is very over stated, its about 15m to 30m an hour for that type of people and that is the majority of mission runners in hisec, not those that blitz in the best LP areas. The majority of people are very sup-optimal in terms of level 4's.
When I was in Cobalt Edge using a carrier with fighters on grid and an oracle or Legion and I was running at 108m an hour as a player and it was continuous warp to next stuff and blap waves of NPC's. Not all the warping I have to do in hisec plus selling and moving stuff, it was there in my face income.
Are you seriously telling me that Goons get less then what I was doing in Cobalt Edge in IRC. Well I never...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Sougiro Seta
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 12:05:48 -
[3678] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Thank god then, that you have alliance income shared out. How many moons getting mined in high sec again?
Oh wait, that's right. That income is to be ignored because it doesn't suit you, right?
This is about the motivations of the players. What's gonna motivate a guy who's playtime coincides with the vulnerability window to spend 7 days a week fighting while earning less to none isk, for whatever aspirations he has, than he would in empire space? Stop your "cfc such isk much isk, cfc bad" argument, as that isk is not hitting the line trooper further than srp and coalition-sustainment.
All this anger and hate between groups of players is, imo, one of the great drivers of all this fail-chain that drove us from up to 50k players online one year ago to current situation. I'm proud of being part of the CFC but I like Mordus Angels for coming to Dekklein for party, Hard knocks coming through whs and raping our ratters, Tri dropping on me, N3 for being our archenemy.
They generate content, they're my ingame enemies but they make the game I like sustainable. Approving/encouraging changes just based on hatred against groups which represent a great part of the player base and the economic base is terrible to the game. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
717
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 12:14:52 -
[3679] - Quote
Jessy Andersteen wrote:And dotlan show that there is more risk in JITA than in nullsec. Metrics. This is the dumbest comparison I've seen in a while. You're taking the single most populated system in all of EVE and comparing it to nullsec systems - of course there's going to be more destruction.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 12:24:34 -
[3680] - Quote
Sougiro Seta wrote:
This is about the motivations of the players. What's gonna motivate a guy who's playtime coincides with the vulnerability window to spend 7 days a week fighting while earning less to none isk, for whatever aspirations he has, than he would in empire space? Stop your "cfc such isk much isk, cfc bad" argument, as that isk is not hitting the line trooper further than srp and coalition-sustainment.
That he gets to spend 7 days a week fighting from a full alliance hanger? Some folks in Eve just like to fight. Earning isk is just a necessary evil to get them to the next fight. If you're that concerned about it, pay them a salary. Come on, you know you can afford it.
Quote: All this anger and hate between groups of players is, imo, one of the great drivers of all this fail-chain that drove us from up to 50k players online one year ago to current situation. I'm proud of being part of the CFC but I like Mordus Angels for coming to Dekklein for party, Hard knocks coming through whs and raping our ratters, Tri dropping on me, N3 for being our archenemy.
You know you're playing a game where playing mind games with people to get them to betray their friends is considered fair game, right? You really think the player hatred has gotten bad lately? Really? Go back on the forums to any time period you'd care to choose and compare.
Quote: They generate content, they're my ingame enemies but they make the game I like sustainable. Approving/encouraging changes just based on hatred against groups which represent a great part of the player base and the economic base is terrible to the game.
It's not hatred against a group. It's power and resources in the game becoming permanently lopsided to the point that the game has played itself out and reached the "end state". That, not hatred, is accounting for the falling participation.
|
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
218
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 12:55:46 -
[3681] - Quote
Drogo Drogos wrote:From Super pilots to burned out nullsec players getting fed up with constand defence fleets day in day out. I dunno, I'm tentatively looking forward to seeing if these changes'll turn into more small fleets engaging other small fleets, rather than the 1kv1k or bigger fleet fights which have become de jure sov fights as of the last 4 years. |
Baden Luskan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 12:57:38 -
[3682] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Ultimately, I just cant be optimistic about the sov changes. It strikes me as overly complicated and needlessly disruptive. The fact that these idea come from the same folk that gave us industry teams and the minigame with its spew doesnt help. A simpler system would in my opinion be much more desirable. Sov decay would achieve most of the results that ccp is looking for without the disruption - what is sov decay? It is the idea that if enough people dont live/play in a particular system, they will progressively lose control over the system. As time goes on, npc events appear in the system disrupting game play, and if not responded to, ultimately besieging the system in an incursion like event. If the event is not defeated, the npc would take over the system rendering it contestable npc sov. To prevent these event from being farmed, the npc would not have any appreciable reward for killing them apart from control over the sov of the system. Because no alliance has the people to live everywhere, this type of system would naturally lead to npc sov systems spreading across the map, which would in turn give smaller alliances the opportunity to either stage out of the systems or to grab the systems to live in themselves. So sov decay achieves the same results of promoting access to null for smaller groups while limiting the size of alliances, all without the needless complexity and disruption.
I support this system 1000%
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
187
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 12:58:10 -
[3683] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Once again, Fozzie proves to be an obedient goon lad pog.
Is there anything in those changes which isn't a goon wet dream?
No, nothing, only goonies win. Like they took the biggest win in jump fatigue changes, and Fozzie's nerf-every-ship-and-tactic-goons-are-too-bad-to-use crusade.
#stopfozzie
I live in one of the +200% PVP regions. I believe there was a stated goal to bring more pvp in every region, so can we STOP changes which remove even more pvp from Deklein and bring even more to stupid forms of it to my side of the donut?
grr fozzie?
I'm really confused now. Who am I supposed to rabidly hate and despise without a good reason?
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:03:43 -
[3684] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:That is a pretty good appraisal - Only thing you left out is how long you believe the novelty of taking sov just because you can and not getting anything in return, except a few fights, will last.
My guess - About 6 months, by then the novelty of being griefed out of your sov regularly will have worn off and people just won't bother. The large groups will persevere because they can afford to but the small groups will just give up trying.
Lets all spend 6 months doing Empire and saving isk so we can go take sov for a few weeks and get some fights. Then pack up go back to empire and start over. Sounds exciting doesn't it
Its a tough one and the big unknown in terms of what is left in the game, in the past I would have been fairly confident that people would have gone for it, but too many people in Eve are instant gratification people who think a good hunt is an easy catch for them and a kill mail.
I am aware of one alliance that has sov at this very moment to generate fights but one of the leaders of that alliance has posted here in support of these changes.
But I cannot see it, I had decided to stick about 5bn into a war chest for this and see what happens, then think again, but I am also waiting for some people to come back to the game who might well go for it longer term and with a hell of a lot more in assets. We shall see...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
717
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:05:51 -
[3685] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Drogo Drogos wrote:From Super pilots to burned out nullsec players getting fed up with constand defence fleets day in day out. I dunno, I'm tentatively looking forward to seeing if these changes'll turn into more small fleets engaging other small fleets, rather than the 1kv1k or bigger fleet fights which have become de jure sov fights as of the last 4 years. I like both kinds of fights. I felt like we had plenty of small fights. Now it seems that's all we'll have.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:12:13 -
[3686] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Sougiro Seta wrote:afkalt wrote:Sougiro Seta wrote:afkalt wrote:What income would the afktar get if he was using a boat as pimped as a mission blitzer......?
Care to take a whack at mission income in an afktar?
I thought not.
Also a massive LOL that you're taking alliance taxes off their income and somehow rolling that into a nullsec problem. 30M ticks pretaxes on a Kronos/Vindicator, aka 76,5M/h post taxes. Shut up john snow. "Dear CCP. My alliance taxes are too high. Buff bounties please." I suppose if you were taxed at 100%, this would also be someone elses problem? People like you deserve answers that drive directly to a forum ban :) Dear CCP, even with a perfect character and flying a shiny ship a nullsec pilot make the same money than a mission runner, with delayed local and 4h harass-party a day. That's a better statement john snow. Thank god then, that you have alliance income shared out. How many moons getting mined in high sec again? Oh wait, that's right. That income is to be ignored because it doesn't suit you, right? Simply. \When did CCP change highsec moons so they could be mined? Yes alliances make income from moons (not in highsec though). I belong to one of those alliances and I can assure you, the income does not get given directly to members. Some of it may go toward SRP, some of it goes toward concord fees (sov bills), more of it is given to FC's and officers as a stipend for service to the alliance, much of it is reinvested in assets for the alliance (the odd 80 bil here and there to build and outpost doesn't fall from the sky) smart alliances save some for when or if they happen to lose moons or get involved in a decent war (funding a war costs a lot for an alliance).
I think before you comment on nulsec income, you might want to talk to those who live in nulsec and have to live off it. Or better still do it yourself.
Oh and if there is an alliance out there that shares moon income directly with line members, please contact me I want to join.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12313
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:17:32 -
[3687] - Quote
Good afternoon folks.
We're working on a survey to help us filter the high volume of feedback about the time zone mechanics, and since we don't want to ask people to answer the same questions too many times we're going to wait until that survey is ready before starting the specific feedback thread for that area.
I have created a new thread in F&I that goes over the intentions behind the Entosis Link mechanics in a bit more detail, and provides a place for targetted feedback surrounding that module and the ships that fit it. You can find that thread here.
I'm still catching back up to the posts in this thread after the weekend, but thanks again to everyone posting constructive feedback.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
864
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:18:21 -
[3688] - Quote
See my other posts.
My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
187
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:20:04 -
[3689] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Can we also remove standings? What you have in your alliance ... is blue , every thing else neut.
It wouldn't do anything. People would just use out of game tools like Provi does to manage their standings.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
717
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:38:38 -
[3690] - Quote
afkalt wrote:See my other posts.
My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it. That's nice for you? I bought my dread and carrier with my own ISK, and so has almost everyone else in this alliance.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:52:26 -
[3691] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:That is a pretty good appraisal - Only thing you left out is how long you believe the novelty of taking sov just because you can and not getting anything in return, except a few fights, will last.
My guess - About 6 months, by then the novelty of being griefed out of your sov regularly will have worn off and people just won't bother. The large groups will persevere because they can afford to but the small groups will just give up trying.
Lets all spend 6 months doing Empire and saving isk so we can go take sov for a few weeks and get some fights. Then pack up go back to empire and start over. Sounds exciting doesn't it Its a tough one and the big unknown in terms of what is left in the game, in the past I would have been fairly confident that people would have gone for it, but too many people in Eve are instant gratification people who think a good hunt is an easy catch for them and a kill mail. I am aware of one alliance that has sov at this very moment to generate fights but one of the leaders of that alliance has posted here in support of these changes. But I cannot see it, I had decided to stick about 5bn into a war chest for this and see what happens, then think again, but I am also waiting for some people to come back to the game who might well go for it longer term and with a hell of a lot more in assets. We shall see... 5 billion war chest? I hope you have at least half a dozen friends with as much or more than you. Be sure to let them know ahead of time, their isk is already gone and they will still have to provide everything they need to stay in sov, even for a limited time, so another 4 or 5 bil.
- - - - - - - - That's the thing, is CCP looking for alliances to take sov and it only be a short term thing or are they wanting to see sov nul develop into a place where there is some constancy. All the restrictions CCP have placed on player movement, including Home System clones, jump nerfs, fatigue, would indicate they are expecting players not to move around too much. Yet the style of Sov they are planning on introducing is the opposite. It will encourage griefers and large groups to push whoever they can out of where ever they can, so Sov Nul will to a large extent be a like a mobile home. You plant your flag, just long enough for someone to decide they don't want you there and then you move. A minimum 4 hour per day window for sov defense is a guarantee many small groups will remain highly mobile, or would if they could move "home Clone". Not sure how that little mechanic is going to work, not even convinced the master minds behind this change even considered it during planning. New sov mechanics - not going to work very well if you can only move your clone every 12 months, is it? Unless everyone just switch side each time your home gets threatened - WOW how big could the big 3 grow by manipulating that mechanic. - - - - - - - - - - Of course the alliance who only holds sov to generate fights supports this, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. They have already accepted they will lose sov when it suits someone to take it from them.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
867
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:52:51 -
[3692] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:afkalt wrote:See my other posts.
My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it. That's nice for you? I bought my dread and carrier with my own ISK, and so has almost everyone else in this alliance.
So all that demonstrates is different alliance distribute the moon income differently.
Put another way - that's a player problem MADE by players. This is not CCPs "problem" to fix. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3141
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:28:34 -
[3693] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:afkalt wrote:See my other posts.
My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it. That's nice for you? I bought my dread and carrier with my own ISK, and so has almost everyone else in this alliance. So all that demonstrates is different alliance distribute the moon income differently. Put another way - that's a player problem MADE by players. This is not CCPs "problem" to fix. Capitals are alliance level assets used to further the goals of the organisation as a whole. There's a reason why they specifically give you the capital hull rather than a pile of ISK to blow on exotic dancers or interceptors to derp around in lowsec, because they expect you to give them a return on the investment by showing up to structure shoot/rep ops.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
877
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:50:25 -
[3694] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:afkalt wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:afkalt wrote:See my other posts.
My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it. That's nice for you? I bought my dread and carrier with my own ISK, and so has almost everyone else in this alliance. So all that demonstrates is different alliance distribute the moon income differently. Put another way - that's a player problem MADE by players. This is not CCPs "problem" to fix. Capitals are alliance level assets used to further the goals of the organisation as a whole. There's a reason why they specifically give you the capital hull rather than a pile of ISK to blow on exotic dancers or interceptors to derp around in lowsec, because they expect you to give them a return on the investment by showing up to structure shoot/rep ops.
Absolutely - but you take my point - it is something I DONT need to buy, so it is income of a sort. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
323
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 15:11:18 -
[3695] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Absolutely - but you take my point - it is something I DONT need to buy, so it is income of a sort. Net Profit = Gross Profit - Expenses
edit: In Eve terms:
Income = Amount earned - (PLEX + PvP addiction)
:) |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4006
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 15:22:57 -
[3696] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties. Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 15:36:17 -
[3697] - Quote
I am sure I replied to the Goon who said 50m ratting in anoms, but it has disappeared, maybe I thought I posted it, which is odd, there was certainly nothing controversial in it and it was pertinent to the question of whether space is worth using and I said that I was able to earn 108m an hour in Cobalt Edge with a carrier and oracle on grid and this is what a Goon posted in the new thread:
Anya Solette wrote: 100m isk is literally an hour of ratting on an afk alt, i sneeze and more isk comes out my nose than that. Also, unless you have a dictor with perfect coordination and a good warpin at the instant you alpha the trollceptor, you're not catching that snaked pod.
So 100m = 50m when it suits you.
Please stop going on about hisec income vs null, there is no comparison, we are talking about whether the income in low truesec systems is worth taking space for, and my opinion is no it is not.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
327
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 15:50:17 -
[3698] - Quote
Anya Solette wrote: 100m isk is literally an hour of ratting on an afk alt, i sneeze and more isk comes out my nose than that. Also, unless you have a dictor with perfect coordination and a good warpin at the instant you alpha the trollceptor, you're not catching that snaked pod. That snaked pod which now has to find it's way out of a hostile system through the bubble camp that the inties ignored? Puh-lease. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
720
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 15:53:36 -
[3699] - Quote
Yeah let's just spam every gate with bubbles. That's definitely the nullsec I want to see.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
327
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 15:55:29 -
[3700] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Yeah let's just spam every gate with bubbles. That's definitely the nullsec I want to see. Kinda seems like the CFC plan by trying to remove interceptors from the equation...
I mean nullified ships are basically the most effective way to AVOID that situation are they not?
Nice to have you onboard. |
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
721
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:00:13 -
[3701] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Yeah let's just spam every gate with bubbles. That's definitely the nullsec I want to see. Kinda seems like the CFC plan by trying to remove interceptors from the equation... I mean nullified ships are basically the most effective way to AVOID that situation are they not? Nice to have you onboard. I think there's a lot more that needs to be fixed with this mess than simply removing interceptors from the equation.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
454
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:02:02 -
[3702] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:afkalt wrote:See my other posts.
My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it. That's nice for you? I bought my dread and carrier with my own ISK, and so has almost everyone else in this alliance. So all that demonstrates is different alliance distribute the moon income differently. Put another way - that's a player problem MADE by players. This is not CCPs "problem" to fix.
All this discussion about alliance-wide programs is a red herring. These are symptoms of flaws in the current state of the game.
SRP and subsidisation programmes were borne directly from sovereignty mechanics designed by CCP to favour the biggest, strongest ships. Both POS-based sov and its successor Dominion made capital ships a necessity for taking and holding space. Such ships have always involved an element of tedium in 99% of ops; waiting around for hours to find out if you're even going to fight anyone does not make for exciting gameplay. Then when these expensive ships are inevitably lost, it's unreasonable to expect casual players to spend weeks replacing them for the promise of more boredom.
It's human nature to take the path of least-resistance, so the result at the end of the day is our current meta; alliances grouping up into coalitions to: increase the number of expensive ships to defend their territory decrease the number of expensive ships attacking their territory generate income to maintain all the expensive ships defending their territory
By removing the capital fleet as the barrier for null-sec entry, these new sov changes are a step in the right direction. Done properly they could even undermine the necessity for having SRP in future nullsec alliances. |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
175
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:06:58 -
[3703] - Quote
I keep hearing about how this new mechanic will greatly benefit the large coalitions. Granted, those with larger reserves of pilots with tons of FC's will always benefit. But currently, if the goons wanted to pound someone into the ground, they can. They can currently do it any time they want. If such an entity is currently out there, it is simply because they are being ignored and they don't want the space.
And currently there is about zero chance a small group can ever get a foot hold in their space.
So with the new mechanic, I agree, the goons will be able to walk all over anyone they want. Like they can now. But... BUT smaller groups will be able to hit their areas (or anyone's area) and possibly do something without needing a fleet of supers and a bank account that rivals the Rothschild family. They more than likely will not succeed, but at least they can try. But eventually with endless repeated poking, if an organization has too much space, they will probably trim the excess due to the lower bar of initiation cost.
Now I think CCP is purposely withholding the yearned for carrot that everyone is calling for. The jump changes forced a lot of change. Organizations gave up tons of space. And others gained. This change will probably again trim the excess from the people who still want too much. If they introduced a carrot with these changes, the changes they are looking for are less likely to occur. I am willing to bet there are a few carrots in the works, but overall now might not be the best of times. It's a balancing at, hopefully they succeed without losing too many.
At the very least we should get a few months of action, even if it is Mitten's Kittens taking over the whole universe :)
EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6576
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:20:08 -
[3704] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:Now I think CCP is purposely withholding the yearned for carrot that everyone is calling for. The jump changes forced a lot of change. Organizations gave up tons of space. And others gained. This change will probably again trim the excess from the people who still want too much. If they introduced a carrot with these changes, the changes they are looking for are less likely to occur. I am willing to bet there are a few carrots in the works, but overall now might not be the best of times. It's a balancing at, hopefully they succeed without losing too many. Indeed, not unlike cancer treatment or something, it is reasonable to suggest the first thing is to make a wasteland such that all the far-too-clever people will decide to leave (because they're too clever to stay) and then a bunch of silly people who make bad decisions will come in.
Lady Zarrina wrote:At the very least we should get a few months of action, even if it is Mitten's Kittens taking over the whole universe :)
Not going to happen. If anything, you should see your dream of nadot being replaced by random lowsec or npc nullsec dwellers' sov. They probably won't live in it either, but hey...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Vantigan
Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:28:54 -
[3705] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:[quote=Lady Zarrina] Not going to happen. If anything, you should see your dream of nadot being replaced by random lowsec or npc nullsec dwellers' sov. They probably won't live in it either, but hey...
That's because all the big alliances act like toddlers. "If I can't have you cant either, smash smash smash!"
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:35:09 -
[3706] - Quote
Drogo Drogos wrote:I think no matter how you look at all these changes it will cost CCP a fcton of subs.
From Super pilots to burned out nullsec players getting fed up with constand defence fleets day in day out.
Multiple accounts will be closed to as there is no need for cyno alts or multiple ratting accounts to farm for expensive ratting fits / supers / titans.
I start to wonder how many dev's need to pack their bags this time next year with all the subscription losses that might be comming after June.
*Snip* Please refrain from discussing other (non-EvE/Dust/Valkyrie) games. ISD Ezwal.
Oh well, close down your accounts. Or better, put some chars on the market. I'll be needing a lot more cyno alts in this new sov game... |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:42:52 -
[3707] - Quote
I said it in the other thread, but I'll repeat it here, along with this change something needs to be done to make system resources scale with the level of occupancy, to a point. The best idea that I've seen is converting anoms to mining and plexing missions.
Do that. Increase the rewards and quality of the missions (somewhat) with the trusec of the space. If systems could scale to support 100 active players or so, a reasonably sized alliance could comfortably live in a constellation, and defend that constellation even with "trollcepters". They could take more if they wanted to, but they'd have to deal with the downsides that attend getting too spread out.
Make high end moons sov (iHub) dependent too, and you have plenty of incentive to fight for better space while making room for new entrants. To avoid having people pack too many players in one system, start widening the "prime time" window beyond a certain density, so that the sov holder has to choose between spreading out and taking more space or defending a bigger window.
I think most of the complaints here are predicated on the current necessity of a good sized alliance trying to occupy a region or more to keep all of their players in resources, and how difficult that becomes with these mechanics. Fix the underlying problem, instead of trying to figure out how to nerf the mechanics. |
Lupe Meza
Hedion University Amarr Empire
91
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:29:40 -
[3708] - Quote
I wonder if they could make it so all constellations have the same potential value. Not necessarily the same types of resources, but when all is said done the value of the resources is equitable. Go further and distribute the sources of the resources over a wider sparser area, to promote trade, conflict, and or alliances based on a bit more than my F1 horde is bigger than your F1 horde.
If they go this route there should be no "worthless" space, but a more normalized but not homogeneous look could be interesting. Some systems generate more isk, some more minerals, some more PI goods or some mix for example. Make it difficult to be self sufficient in terms of resource generation because of the new geographical (if you can even use that term in space) mechanics they are trying to implement making space "big". This would get people moving that are entrenched and alleviate a lot of the concerns about people raising flags in worthless space. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:39:22 -
[3709] - Quote
Lupe Meza wrote:
If they go this route there should be no "worthless" space, but a more normalized but not homogeneous look could be interesting. Some systems generate more isk, some more minerals, some more PI goods or some mix for example. Make it difficult to be self sufficient in terms of resource generation because of the new geographical (if you can even use that term in space) mechanics they are trying to implement making space "big". This would get people moving that are entrenched and alleviate a lot of the concerns about people raising flags in worthless space.
Most probably don't remember, but they tried to encourage trade by spreading out resources when they introduced rigs. You couldn't build anything with the salvage that you got from one region. You had to acquire stuff from several regions. The theory was that it would stimulate inter-region trade. In fact, people just took the stuff to Jita, and building rigs at first was a monumental PITA.
Making different constellations have different "flavors" could be cool, with some having more industry or PI potential while others have more NPC farming potential. That sounds like a lot of work on CCPs part, but yes, all space should be "livable". If it's not, you're going to end up with alts grinding indexes for defensive purposes alone. A real wrist slasher for people tasked with doing it.
|
Lupe Meza
Hedion University Amarr Empire
91
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:56:33 -
[3710] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Lupe Meza wrote:
If they go this route there should be no "worthless" space, but a more normalized but not homogeneous look could be interesting. Some systems generate more isk, some more minerals, some more PI goods or some mix for example. Make it difficult to be self sufficient in terms of resource generation because of the new geographical (if you can even use that term in space) mechanics they are trying to implement making space "big". This would get people moving that are entrenched and alleviate a lot of the concerns about people raising flags in worthless space.
Most probably don't remember, but they tried to encourage trade by spreading out resources when they introduced rigs. You couldn't build anything with the salvage that you got from one region. You had to acquire stuff from several regions. The theory was that it would stimulate inter-region trade. In fact, people just took the stuff to Jita, and building rigs at first was a monumental PITA. Making different constellations have different "flavors" could be cool, with some having more industry or PI potential while others have more NPC farming potential. That sounds like a lot of work on CCPs part, but yes, all space should be "livable". If it's not, you're going to end up with alts grinding indexes for defensive purposes alone. A real wrist slasher for people tasked with doing it.
Ah, make sense. I wonder if it would be better overall though if there were just more regional trade hubs rather than Jita being the economic center for the whole game pretty much. I don't know how much pressure would have to be exerted to encourage that to happen though without blatantly making it inconvenient, and if it would even be counterproductive given the inertia of the population is pretty strong in this game. very difficult to get people to change behavior or ways of operating.
I just don't like the idea of more isk faucets being added, I'd rather see the hordes of isk already stockpiled over the years enter circulation and leave wallets and enter the actual eco system of the game. |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6576
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 18:27:55 -
[3711] - Quote
Trade hubs work on an economies of scale sort of argument (reducing transaction costs of running around for both buyer and seller, for one).
It's slightly different in highsec, since moving is much easier, but when you start having to jump stuff around outside of there...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
174
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 18:54:36 -
[3712] - Quote
xttz wrote:It's human nature to take the path of least-resistance, so the result at the end of the day is our current meta; alliances grouping up into coalitions to: increase the number of expensive ships to defend their territory decrease the number of expensive ships attacking their territory generate income to maintain all the expensive ships defending their territory
By removing the capital fleet as the barrier for null-sec entry, these new sov changes are a step in the right direction. Done properly they could even undermine the necessity for having SRP in future nullsec alliances. If this scenario comes to pass and GSF's SRP wallet starts to grow unreasonably, what to do with the extra? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6576
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:11:27 -
[3713] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:xttz wrote:It's human nature to take the path of least-resistance, so the result at the end of the day is our current meta; alliances grouping up into coalitions to: increase the number of expensive ships to defend their territory decrease the number of expensive ships attacking their territory generate income to maintain all the expensive ships defending their territory
By removing the capital fleet as the barrier for null-sec entry, these new sov changes are a step in the right direction. Done properly they could even undermine the necessity for having SRP in future nullsec alliances. If this scenario comes to pass and GSF's SRP wallet starts to grow unreasonably, what to do with the extra? Remember that bit where people argued the sovlaser trolling would be too expensive to sustain reasonably?
Our wallet won't grow...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lupe Meza
Hedion University Amarr Empire
91
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:23:06 -
[3714] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Trade hubs work on an economies of scale sort of argument (reducing transaction costs of running around for both buyer and seller, for one).
It's slightly different in highsec, since moving is much easier, but when you start having to jump stuff around outside of there...
Well that's what I was hoping for. People not living in High not being too heavily reliant on it.
I was hoping for a point where the only thing you would want to transport out of highsec as a null entity would be at most raw materials or things like ammunition because in order to thrive your own local logistics and industrial complex is solid. If not you either have to rely on other groups through alliances to handle that end or you eventually fail.
It would give industrialists and miners a place in many groups if those groups don't use alts for those jobs, maybe get some of them out of high security space because of better opportunities for them other than padding a pirates killboard. This could of course still happen, but the incentives in huge profits would make up for it, and they'd be more likely to have a corp/alliance defending industrial centers, because they have a vested interest in them. This would also be a huge point of vulnerability and on a metagame level people would have to actually strategize around it.
The "carebears" become a conflict driver and raiding someone's resources and defending their infrastructure becomes a serious consideration lacking when you can just "go to Jita". When power is not reflected solely by what isk is generated from PVE or monopolized commodities and the ships "magically" bought or replaced with it, but rather by the groups and their allies' ability to manufacture, produce, and maintain their own industrial complex as any sovereign power should, away from the teat of High Sec.
Just thinking aloud though but honestly a while ago one thing that attracted me to the game was a trailer I saw, and honestly it was so removed from what the game was, but I hope one day it gets closer to realizing potential that is there. Great potential for more meaning and consequence in the sandbox. I would have especially never thought the part about unaffiliated someone defending a miner of all things so hilarious rather than whoring on the kill until actually playing a while for example, but at the time it was pretty cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hmqyejCYU |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6576
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:29:55 -
[3715] - Quote
Lupe Meza wrote:Just thinking aloud though but honestly a while ago one thing that attracted me to the game was a trailer I saw, and honestly it was so removed from what the game was, but I hope one day it gets closer to realizing potential that is there. Great potential for more meaning and consequence in the sandbox. I would have especially never thought the part about unaffiliated someone defending a miner of all things so hilarious rather than whoring on the kill until actually playing a while for example, but at the time it was pretty cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hmqyejCYU You fell for it. Op success.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lupe Meza
Hedion University Amarr Empire
91
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:39:58 -
[3716] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lupe Meza wrote:Just thinking aloud though but honestly a while ago one thing that attracted me to the game was a trailer I saw, and honestly it was so removed from what the game was, but I hope one day it gets closer to realizing potential that is there. Great potential for more meaning and consequence in the sandbox. I would have especially never thought the part about unaffiliated someone defending a miner of all things so hilarious rather than whoring on the kill until actually playing a while for example, but at the time it was pretty cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hmqyejCYU You fell for it. Op success.
Yeah they got me. But like I said I'm hopeful. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
237
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:56:51 -
[3717] - Quote
Baden Luskan wrote:Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Ultimately, I just cant be optimistic about the sov changes. It strikes me as overly complicated and needlessly disruptive. The fact that these idea come from the same folk that gave us industry teams and the minigame with its spew doesnt help. A simpler system would in my opinion be much more desirable. Sov decay would achieve most of the results that ccp is looking for without the disruption - what is sov decay? It is the idea that if enough people dont live/play in a particular system, they will progressively lose control over the system. As time goes on, npc events appear in the system disrupting game play, and if not responded to, ultimately besieging the system in an incursion like event. If the event is not defeated, the npc would take over the system rendering it contestable npc sov. To prevent these event from being farmed, the npc would not have any appreciable reward for killing them apart from control over the sov of the system. Because no alliance has the people to live everywhere, this type of system would naturally lead to npc sov systems spreading across the map, which would in turn give smaller alliances the opportunity to either stage out of the systems or to grab the systems to live in themselves. So sov decay achieves the same results of promoting access to null for smaller groups while limiting the size of alliances, all without the needless complexity and disruption. I support this system 1000% +1 on 'Sov decay'
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
294
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 20:01:52 -
[3718] - Quote
RogueHunteer wrote:Emmy Mnemonic wrote:Let SOV control the yield of tthe R64/32 moons.
CCP Fozzie has snowed in completely on nullsec ratting as the major ISK faucet.
CCP has forgotten they themselves sprinkled a LOT of REALLY valuable moons around EVE space. And they have forgotten they added some 275 new moons not too long ago (as they nerfed Technetium). In low sec, where there is no sov, every R64 is owned by a powerbloc. Every. Single. One.
How come it is like that CCP?
These R64/32 and also R16 moons are what drives conflict! Not sovereignity! These R64/32 are what the power blocks fight for! Alliances will not fight for stupid ratting space for their grunts! That's not how it works, CCP!
Make SOV control the yield of the R64/32 moons so that: - no SOV brings really crappy yield - SOV brings better yield - upgrades in iHubs can generate better yield than we have today
This would also nerf the lowsec R64/32s and make them viable to own for smaller entities, but not so important for the power blocs. Nullsec R64/32s would be much more attractive and even MORE important to get hold of AND it would give a large incentive to own SOV in the systems where the valuable moons are! It would make SOV worth fighting for!
It will generate a lot of fights over both SOV and valuable moons. And moons don't move around, ratting can be moved or done in alternative ways, it's just time for ISK. If you want moon-income you have to live there! And moon-goo is an income that can be handled by fewer people, that generates a LOT of income, and that is needed to produce T2 ships and will have an impact on the ecomony of the power blocs and on EVE much more than sov will!
Leaders will fight over moons! Leaders will not fight for ratting!
CCP Fozzie - have a look at the moons, will you! Moons mining needs to be removed and bring ring mining in to the game! Goodbye passive income.... hello miners :) Should have never been passive income of that magnitude in the game to begin with, that is a huge problem. Hopefully CCP stops intentionally foot dragging on this issue.
......................................................
|
Hedion's oracle
Universal Fleet Operations
89
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 20:09:01 -
[3719] - Quote
Xpaulusx wrote:RogueHunteer wrote:Emmy Mnemonic wrote:Let SOV control the yield of tthe R64/32 moons.
CCP Fozzie has snowed in completely on nullsec ratting as the major ISK faucet.
CCP has forgotten they themselves sprinkled a LOT of REALLY valuable moons around EVE space. And they have forgotten they added some 275 new moons not too long ago (as they nerfed Technetium). In low sec, where there is no sov, every R64 is owned by a powerbloc. Every. Single. One.
How come it is like that CCP?
These R64/32 and also R16 moons are what drives conflict! Not sovereignity! These R64/32 are what the power blocks fight for! Alliances will not fight for stupid ratting space for their grunts! That's not how it works, CCP!
Make SOV control the yield of the R64/32 moons so that: - no SOV brings really crappy yield - SOV brings better yield - upgrades in iHubs can generate better yield than we have today
This would also nerf the lowsec R64/32s and make them viable to own for smaller entities, but not so important for the power blocs. Nullsec R64/32s would be much more attractive and even MORE important to get hold of AND it would give a large incentive to own SOV in the systems where the valuable moons are! It would make SOV worth fighting for!
It will generate a lot of fights over both SOV and valuable moons. And moons don't move around, ratting can be moved or done in alternative ways, it's just time for ISK. If you want moon-income you have to live there! And moon-goo is an income that can be handled by fewer people, that generates a LOT of income, and that is needed to produce T2 ships and will have an impact on the ecomony of the power blocs and on EVE much more than sov will!
Leaders will fight over moons! Leaders will not fight for ratting!
CCP Fozzie - have a look at the moons, will you! Moons mining needs to be removed and bring ring mining in to the game! Goodbye passive income.... hello miners :) Should have never been passive income of that magnitude in the game to begin with, that is a huge problem. Hopefully CCP stops intentionally foot dragging on this issue.
Someone in this thread finally gets it.. Way to much income from the top down.
Error: Working As intended
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
858
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 20:10:46 -
[3720] - Quote
All these proponents of the system keep thinking in terms of a 1v1. "I counter your off-grid boosted trollceptor with my Cerberus and my cyno alt in a Maulus."
Think about this system in the context of defending one constellation with a small alliance. Assume a small alliance (Alliance A) with a maximum of 100 players active in a given time zone. Assume a typical 0.0 constellation with six systems (three stations). In our example, there is only a single entry gate to the constellation - should be optimum terrain to defend.
Now, never mind the fact that 100 active players in six systems is going to be cramped. You want us to actually live in the space, right? So, none of these characters is making their ISK from highsec incursion running, or FW, or any way that takes them away from their space. Let's assume these are unusually unselfish people who don't mind running the worse anomalies, "just because it's for the good of the whole." They even mine to raise the index.
Alliance A is happily doing their thing in this space. They rat, they mine, they build, they roam, they do home defense. In the current sovereignty system, they can join with friendly alliances nearby to defend a critical timer. The local occupants in nearby NPC space provide lots of small gang content, but are not a threat to their ownership of the system.
Then one day Alliance B gets together 200 pilots and decides to use Alliance A as a punching bag. They move to the nearby NPC space and set up a staging area. The attack comes quickly and swiftly in the form of a 150-pilot interceptor gang. It shows up in Alliance A's prime time and by some miracle every single active member of Alliance A is online, active on comms, and has all the ships needed for a fight. Alliance B jumps into Alliance A's space and quickly begins entosising everything they can. Alliance A has 15 different structures to defend - 3 stations, six TCU's, and six IHubs. Now is where the fun [broken] part starts.
Alliance A has several possible strategies:
(1) A disregards the dictum that "he who defends everywhere, defends no where." A attempts to play a perfect defense and puts 6-7 pilots at each structure. A has to put larger ships at each position in order to compensate. Once Alliance A has committed to defending each structure, Alliance B brings in another 50 pilots in Ishtars and wrecks each one in short order. Alliance A tries to regroup and form up to meet the Ishtar fleet, but the Ishtar fleet runs whenever this happens. This goes on for four hours or until Alliance A finally loses all the timers. Even if, through some miracle, Alliance A holds on for four hours of this nonsense and manages to save half the timers, but has still lost seven. In that case, in 48 hours, they now have 35 separate structures to defend (spread throughout the constellation).
(2) A tries for a middle ground and chooses to defend the three station systems: 3 stations, 3 TCU's, and 3 IHubs. With only 9 structures, A can now put 10-12 pilots per structure. Alliance B quickly reinforces the other three systems, then uses the mobility advantage to hold A in place while it brings in the 50 Ishtars. Even if Alliance A masses all the pilots in a given system, they are still dealing with 50 Ishtars and 150 interceptors. Alliance A loses tons of tackle ships trying to hold down the Ishtars, while B warps around at will, kiting the heavier Alliance A fleet and hitting the undefended structures whenever they can. Once again, if through some miracle, Alliance A wins half the timers, they still have 25 timers (spread throughout the constellation) to defend in 48 hours.
(3) A chooses to defend only one system. They put everything into defending the station in one system. B wins all the timers that A forfeits. They then reship into a proper 200-person fleet and beat Alliance A at the station, unless A has lots of experienced pilots in capital ships. In which case A commits everything to hold that one station. B now has tons of timers; A has temporarily defended the one station.
The next day, B can threaten the station, and any other remaining structures. 48 hours later... when all those timers come out, the same basic thing happens again. B uses numbers and mobility to beat A.
Or, option (4) A realizes this is stupid and moves to the nearest NPC station. Most of the members start living off ninja-ratting, NPC missions, and exploration. No one bothers upgrading the I-Hubs, so the anomaly ratting is terrible. Mining and industry are essentially non-existent (who builds a factory in a wartorn wasteland?). People start spending more time running Incursions in high sec or FW in low sec, which fragments the alliance and tears apart the social bonds that hold it together. Without owning space, A starts to bleed off members who want to be members of a 0.0 alliance that owns space. Some move to other alliances... In other words, Goons get even bigger. Others stop playing at all. Each day, as fewer people log in to comms, it becomes less fun to be there. A dies and Eve loses a few more subscribers.
Yes, Dominion sovereignty might not be perfect, but it is a damn site better than the above. The offensive power of Fozzie Sovereignty is completely out of balance. The defender has to be able to defend everywhere, but has no opportunity to fortify or entrench his position.
Some might say, "but the same thing will happen now!" This is simply untrue. For one, in Dominion, the offense has to commit significant assets to stage an attack. Yes, if someone brings fifty supers to the fight, A may have a problem. But if fifty supers come to the fight, A can request help from friendly alliance C and we get a big fight, or a massive blue-ball fest (that at least has the advantage of only being once, not every day). In Fozzieland, if C tries to help A against B, D will entosis C's stuff. And don't forget that anyone who comes to help probably gets Space Aids. Thank you, Fozzie.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6577
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 20:34:04 -
[3721] - Quote
Fatigue is less of an inssue if you use ships that are really fast.
So like ... I think our favorites (ishtar tengu) will be even more of a good choice.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Sawk Backer
Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 20:49:07 -
[3722] - Quote
I am not really someone who likes to post on the forums, but if what I heard is true : removing drones from supercarriers to convert them into big command ships/logistics, Consider then the income of my 4x accounts gone, i do not see the point playing anymore, you can not imagine the frustration of someone who have spend years farming for nothing.
I farmed way too long to obtain this ship, and as an old player i can not see all that time i have put into the given be a "non-sense". Supercaps are part of this game, they have been our dreams one day, and you can not remove that goal to new players, or remove that achievement for old players like myself
We are all aware that changes have to be made in this game, especially to make it enjoyable again within the fact that big blobs have to evolve together, or even only a supercap field (i am aware it is an issue still)
But destroying supercarriers/titans will just bring another matters : alliances like brave noobies or CFC will just be unbeatable, and "elite alliances", which have skills, composed by old players, are just going to die.
so yes CCP, as diplomat of TCF, an alliance who wants sov really badly, and who is waiting for this patch since 3 months , i am telling you my point of view -Do not nerf supercaps - Change the sov game mechanics - Listen a bit more to your old players, they are the ones that keep that game on, that bring friends on it.
Maybe all you will see there are the tears of a guy who do not want to loose his supercarrier, but you should extand that vision to what's in the head of new players, the dream it represents to them, and that dream i had one day...
You should not remove that from the game
Regards |
Senzite
3M Industries
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 21:01:56 -
[3723] - Quote
All i see is a whole lot of hate coming from CCP.
CCP has made it their mission to flame hate null each passing year that goes by and its members in all the various alliances who call this space home.
This new patch from my point of view this will hurt high sec far more than null....
Why? the value of minerals will now be worth dirt. No more will ore be needed from high sec and if it is it will be in such small amounts it will be pitiful.
No need to have so many titans or supers......derp .......and now you are going to make them worthless to boot....wow a totally lame move in all respects.
The only thing making it worth while to mine was the value of isk ........Now you have just killed an entire profession......lol peachy job. :)
Isk sink...... Now null will have controlled areas at a far less cost for the large established alliances.
Mmm. more ship replacement funds for our alliances to play more burn jita games.....rofl
Thank you CCP :)
Now off to renter space.....sov can be dropped there and a heavy handed level of extortion will be taking place.
With Phoebe fully in place who is going to want to live in the far ends of eve null space with heavy handed super powers all about you? NO ONE. Nor does the super powers of eve have any interest in this space either.
Now to baby sitting.......that is what I see. Not so much with the major alliances but it will be most hurtful of the smaller entities as the large guys adapt and the small guys get trounced due to the over whelming numbers to create hundreds of timers within a 4 hour space.
Now then, what about all the rewards that were promised? i have yet to see CCP reward members in null.....oh yea, small gift of indy cost shaved for building......WOW .....thanks but very lame given risk reward for living in null.
Null space players are all about PVP in all its aspects with anything else just being noise to pass the time. Most buy from jita and have it shipped out no matter what the cost.
Touching on the indy end for a moment.....Unless you have everything at your finger tips to make the ships, mods ect, building in null is a pain in the ass.
For doing t2 you have to copy and invent at one station for best results, refine at another for the same reason and lastly bring all that crap together to get a finished product.....so much wasted time compared to high sec.
Next item on the agenda.
So many have spent huge sums of isk to have the best M/E for the massively expensive bpo's, and for what? naught!!!! absolute lameness.
Massive time investment.
Your player base as a group has spent countless amount of hours training to be high end super capital pilots..... now you are saying refund the skill points or hey guys its now an over sized command ship... How wrong is this???
Do you think all that time and effort is kind to anyone to say .....well, you can always use these massive ships to shoot a pos now and again.
Who are these people? All high end old indy player base and hard core PVP vets.
I guess many start inserting many nice things.
So little love for null....... Killing off of the largest ships in the game that so many have aspired to fly and trained for over a very long time to aquire max skills.
I have played since mid 2006 and have seen much in this game, made a lot of good friends, and friendly enemies.
CCP if you are really looking to give a death kneel to wonderful game we have played of a good many years then continue this path.
May i suggest making the EVE map 2 or 5x its current size and if you really want more members in the far ends of eve with more utilization then additional access to these areas might be viable, besides WH's.
If you do decide on a larger eve then make all the npc rats sleepers or harder.........now this is risk vs reward.
In this new area you can distribute moons on a more even basis than mess with what is currently on the map.
If this area is so hard to rat then regular and supers would then again have value..right?
Keep the ehp's stations in current null the same but make it a real workout for the new area.
Let us create our own stable WH gates...at great cost of course to this new home.
Then take your thinking forward.
We do not want to lose the most massive ships due to utter lameness.
No more stupid nerf's
We, your players of eve enjoy a challenge.
So give us one that lives up to the reputation that EVE use to command. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
182
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 21:58:21 -
[3724] - Quote
Senzite wrote:All i see is a whole lot of hate coming from CCP.
CCP has made it their mission to flame hate null each passing year that goes by and its members in all the various alliances who call this space home.
So give us one that lives up to the reputation that EVE use to command.
great comment, but fozzie has had a reputation for hating indy and everything that went along with it, hence his wicked ideas on it, he wants pew pew which is his main playstyle anything else is to carebear for him to even bear. you can see this is their incredible lack of work ethic towards indy in the first place.
still no fix for the rorqual, still no plan for fixing indy due to removal of teams, no mention of that what so ever.. see my point? this guy seems to want to rip eve to shreds before he departs somewhere else just like the others have done in the past. and SHE is allowing it cause they came up with "a dev can pick and choose what he wants to work on this is a great idea!.. not!"
I cant wait for the competition to begin showing up and watching the many "small time" players leave for that game.. see you all there soon and guess what.. it's going to be a blast seeing how ccp begins the "please stay with us campaign".
watch, wait, and see. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6593
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 22:38:36 -
[3725] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Senzite wrote:All i see is a whole lot of hate coming from CCP.
CCP has made it their mission to flame hate null each passing year that goes by and its members in all the various alliances who call this space home.
So give us one that lives up to the reputation that EVE use to command. great comment, but fozzie has had a reputation for hating indy and everything that went along with it, hence his wicked ideas on it, he wants pew pew which is his main playstyle anything else is to carebear for him to even bear. you can see this is their incredible lack of work ethic towards indy in the first place. still no fix for the rorqual, still no plan for fixing indy due to removal of teams, no mention of that what so ever.. see my point? this guy seems to want to rip eve to shreds before he departs somewhere else just like the others have done in the past. and SHE is allowing it cause they came up with "a dev can pick and choose what he wants to work on this is a great idea!.. not!" I cant wait for the competition to begin showing up and watching the many "small time" players leave for that game.. see you all there soon and guess what.. it's going to be a blast seeing how ccp begins the "please stay with us campaign". watch, wait, and see. I will !!
Massadeath so passionately said he would drag us into a new sovless world if we liked it or not, he's so forceful i'm being carried away by his
<3 <3
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
319
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 22:44:40 -
[3726] - Quote
*sigh*
Really, I'm starting to be very tired of some people here. Not only on these forums, but pretty much on every gaming community. But seeing it on one as amazing as that of EVE hurts.
I am not into sov, but I am as interested for it to be continuously improving as any other aspect of the game.
So, I start reading this topic's OP and the first comments, and all (well, most) I see is whining. Yet more whining. People claiming "IT HAS BEEN 6 YEARS CPP, DO YOUR JOB AND GIVE US SOMETHING PERFECT". First, CCP are not supposed to give you anything, not like if they were your personal slaves or such. Second, perfection doesn't exist, excepting as an ideal to aim for. Third, you can't predict everything a certain change might do. CCP themselves stated this on their devblog. You can have a pretty good idea of what might happen, but you won't see all the implications once you apply the change.
In order to reduce possible bad outcomes, you dedicate time and resources to study the case. Then, you adopt a policy of "let's proceed carefully, with small changes each time, so that nothing goes to hell if something is wrong", especially important with something as deep as Sov. Then, when you really want to do it as perfectly as possible, you explain each possible change to the community and ask it for feedback. With is precisely what is happening with this topic. CCP wants to do sov the right way and are opening themselves to the community like I haven't seen before.
But, instead of taking it as an awesome opportunity to help the devs to do it fine, what do many people do? Say it is crap, that everything will go to hell, that EVE will die, that CCP does not hear the community, and worst of all, that they're not giving them a fully fledged overhaul! Am I the only one to see how shockingly selfish this is? Specially when you know those very same people would criticise such a fully fledged overhaul and say it is completely wrong.
CCP, I wonder how can you bear this. I'd like to see all of these people that criticise everything that the devs do for the game we all love -often without even proposing other ways to do it- get into the role of a game designer. I wouldn't be surprised if they commit suicide by depression, with gamers like that.
Let's finish this post with something constructive.
I don't know much about Sov, but I'd recommend CCP to take note of what other posters said before: trollceptors do have counters aside from other interceptors. And lots of them. So it might not be that bad if interceptors could use the Entosis Link. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 22:49:51 -
[3727] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Quote: How ever it is packaged and presented, it is still nothing more than repetitive grinding of the same thing day after day. If you have 12 to 14 hours a day to play eve this is a great change - Defend your space for 4 hours, go attack someone else's for 4 hours and a few hours to make isk, buy ships and modules, do logistics and all the other day to day things that allow you to do the 4 hours of protecting your space. However it's packaged and presented, that has always been what sov warfare is like in Eve. It's a grinding, life-on-hold contest of wills that usually goes to those with way more commitment to a game than is probably healthy to have. When was it ever not like that? This latest iteration doesn't change that. The only thing it changes is the barrier to entry. I'm sympathetic to some of the posters here who have invested countless hours in building infrastructure and empire. I've done some of that myself, and I know that rug-pulled-out-from-under-you feeling. But, only having two entities in the game who can legitimately contest sov continuing to amass insurmountable war-chests by virtue of either holding or renting out the entire map is not good for the future of the sov game. These changes might not change that. Sov warfare in Eve may have played itself out. I think the ability to threaten sov with something less than a super-cap blob will help, but only if the PvP capable entities in NPC null and low-sec are interested in taking a shot at it, or current coalition members decide that its more fun to break away and be an attacker, than a defender. They might not. If not, this will change nothing. No sorry but your wrong - The ONLY problem with sov as it is today is the fact Sheer numbers will always win. This isn't changing under the new proposals, in fact it is going to make it easier for sheer numbers to win.
This is being magnified under the new sov proposal by becoming "he who can field the most in a 4 hour period wins".
I'm curious, How do you think these changes will affect the the big coalitions? I agree having 2 or 3 mega groups holding all the prime sov and bleeding everyone else out of nul is not good but these changes do little to change this. Holding sov you don't use is a privilege of the rich and stupid. All they will do is drop sov in all the crappy systems they never use and because they have overwhelming numbers and a coalition to back them up, won't lose any system they want to keep.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A couple of questions for all those who believe these new mini games will "fix" sov nul; (the ones devs should be asking themselves but only if their stated goals hold any truth) Who is going to be able to protect their sov more easily? 1: No-one 2: Anyone who wants to 3; The large coalitions have a much better chance
Who is going to be in the best position to grief smaller alliances into quitting sov (or aligning) 1: no-one 2: anyone who wants to 3: the large coalitions have a much better chance
If these changes are introduced in their current proposal CCP has lied to everyone, Again
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Continuous Ignition
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 23:55:57 -
[3728] - Quote
I have no issue with entosis link, even on ceptors,, because there are ways,,, but it does not go far enough.
The game should have more conflict drivers in all space.
top of the head examples.
1. Much smaller corp/alliances. or go back to no alliances, BUT must find a way to prevent blue list coalitions. No easy task I'm sure, but there must be a way.
2. POS online status requires SOV ownership by corp.
3. Resources should be evenly spread on a system/constellation basis. including true sec, tech moons, ore. unevenly spread just makes certain groups richer then their neighbors and will make holding space near certain places untenable. Should balance/push against ability to actually hold the space. the actual output of a more uniform resource environment can be adjusted game wide to achieve balance in the push pull of expansionism vs defensibility.
4. Fewer systems, up to a third fewer. can be supported by lore, drifters, whatever. would push people closer together = more resource conflict. can be added back later if needed to achieve balance. Start with least used systems by whatever combination of metric going back 3 years. Dont tell us before hand or we will try to game it.
5. remove low sec gate guns. Gate guns discourage pvp or create uneven pvp, all else being equal. |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 00:07:25 -
[3729] - Quote
Okay, I did promise more later. So, having had some time to think over the changes, here are my notes (I'll try to be less longwinded than normal):
1) Command Points - What lore reason POSSIBLY exists for these? What happens when an Alliance only owns one system in the Constellation? Do they have to venture into possibly ENEMY space (not even the attacker, necessarily) to DEFEND their system? And how does this make sense in ANY way?
_Subpoint_ Though, again, if you went with my idea about placing upgrades for a system in neighboring systems and having Command Nodes spawn in them - coms sats would make sense since they could be places along the upgrade transmission line for pilots to hack into the network - then this absolves my issue.
2) The "Trollceptor" has been done to death, but yeah - maybe the fitting requirements should make the T1 only accessible to Cruisers (or Destroyers) and larger, the T2 for BCs/BSs and larger, or a gimped fit T3? Could make it a Command thingy...(WF Link)
3) As a person who's only ever been in small Alliances pretty much (I think briefly a bigger one, but I was a newb and my Corp didn't last long there and I had to leave the game for a while so didn't really know what happened when I got back, lol), I see this as not super great for small Alliances. Again, if we only own one or two systems, how are we supposed to defend our space when Command Nodes spawn across the entire Constellation? While maybe this change allows mid-sized Alliances to survive against the big Coalitions, it also means if you can't field enough people to spread across 5-7 systems, you don't have a place in Null. So it imposes a size floor for defense even while removing it for attack.
4) It seems to me bubbles would control the whole experience. Whoever has the larger fleet and can camp the gates basically could trap the defenders in their system for the whole event and fly uncontested to the rest of the Constellation taking Command Nodes.
_Subpoint_ Again, if you use something akin to my idea from before, then this becomes a risk/benefit analysis on the part of the people building up their space. But for small Alliances, this basically means you will be entirely unable to HOLD Sov on even one system due to the Command Node spawning thing. Will you make Bubbles inactive for the space while Command Nodes are spawned? But what does this do to neighbors - supposing, for example, the defenders share their Constellation with a neutral third party that isn't trying to attack them or assault their CNs, but suddenly finds all their defensive bubbles inactive?
5) How does hacking make IHubs and TCUs blow up, exactly? Are the things secretly loaded with bombs (that they never use) that the hackers detonate?
6) 250 km seems like a looooooong range (and this from a person that tends to LIKE dictating range, mind you).
7) Doesn't this scenario disadvantage smaller Alliances (as I've said), but also SEVERELY disadvantage Alliances that have systems on either side of a Constellation gate? Like, if a small Alliance only owned two systems, connected on either side of Constellation gate, they now have to DEFEND potentially 10-14 systems to hold their 2.
8) Second major lore issue - vulnerability windows. Like...seriously. WHAT is the lore explanation for these? Is there one? Can one even be invented? CONCORD has devised an antivirus that is very very powerful and they freely give this technology to NullSec empires, but every day, they have to have 4 hours to run a software patch (though said empires can specify their downtime)? Is there some kind of "software Stront" that has been invented, that has no consumption rate, but has to recharge for 4 hours every day? Like...seriously, WHAT is the explanation for this? This just seems kinda like that political thing in the US that people hate, but which was billed as "Well, we all hate it, but it's required for the system to work and not collapse itself". It seems like this is something that shouldn't be, makes no sense, and most people would oppose on principle, but seems to just *MAGIC* because REASONS - the reason being we have to have something and there's no good idea, so here's what we get...
.
1 and 8, particularly, are lore issues that are just like "wtf?" That's usually a bad sign for a mechanic when you can't in any real way explain it in terms of the game universe's rules. That whole immersion thing.
Most of the rest is, again, from my perspective, how this change actually hurts, rather than helps, smaller Alliances.
There's some merit to the changes, but is definitely needs some tweaks. These are just my issues (and in the case of 1/2/4b, how to mitigate them).
.
Basically:
-Upgrades past level 2 have to be placed outside of system, Command Nodes spawn in all systems where an upgrade is placed linked to the attacked system. -ELs can only be placed on Destroyers and larger. T2s maybe higher requirements still. -Vulnerability windows...wtf?
.
That's pretty much it. Thanks for reading!
Note: I'm neither a Goon nor member of N3, so...take from that what you will. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1083
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 01:59:00 -
[3730] - Quote
Note this:
I am pretty sure, CCP implements as they have designed their Fozzie Logic Low Sec 2.0 and then try tweak it after they see results.
Fatigue worked so this SOV must work, right? Wrong.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10149
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 03:44:50 -
[3731] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: I was able to earn 108m an hour in Cobalt Edge with a carrier and oracle on grid
Wow, 108 mil per hour (54 mil per hour per toon). Nice.
In high sec you can use a Mach and make 86 mil per hour doing lvl 3 missions while being protected by CONCORD.
So for the cost of using TWO characters and a CAPITAL SHIP that takes months to train for, and while flying in space where the space police won't help you, you get a whopping, mind blowing 22 million isk extra per hour total.
Thanks for helping us empirically demonstrate the imbalances we were discussing, imbalances that end up distorting everything ccp tries to do with null sec. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
365
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 04:12:14 -
[3732] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Note this: I am pretty sure, CCP implements as they have designed their Fozzie Logic Low Sec 2.0 and then try tweak it after they see results. Fatigue worked so this SOV must work, right? Wrong. Has fatigue worked? I'm not convinced. All I see is a few thousand players who won't go to try and find fights because they will get fatigue and not be able to join the one big fight that is just around the corner (or is it? we keep getting told it is so it must be)
- - - - - - - - - - - - IMO Fozzie is not doing anything about responding to concerns or anything right now - because he is "trying" to make his CV look good enough for upcoming job interviews.
I killed EveOnline won't look good on the CV.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 04:21:30 -
[3733] - Quote
Another note on the vulnerability window:
A friend of mine put it very elegantly - This completely destroys the concept of a sandbox more than any other single change in the history of Eve.
.
At first I disputed his claim...but then I found I couldn't actually think of any other anti-sandbox change in Eve of this magnitude, and had to submit that he's right. I tend to dislike hyperbole, but I had to concede the point.
This change directly prevents sandbox/chaos theory random events from happening because it places an artificial, hard coded (to the mechanics set) rule that prevents interactions from occurring. That is, in the absence of it, Sov interactions can occur at any time and place - hence the sandbox. But once implemented, it presents an (more) artificial wall in the sandbox, a gatekeeper, saying you can only play with this part of the sandbox between the hours of 1400 and 1800.
.
So while my initial opposition to it was based on lore reasons (my forementioned "wtf" factor), I now also oppose it on the grounds of it being yet another policeman in the sandbox directing the children at play.
Considering that's one of the three major draws of Eve (space game, sandbox/shared universe, geopolitics), that's very unfortunate. It's one of the main things that gives Eve its appeal! Not a good thing to take away. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
365
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 04:38:50 -
[3734] - Quote
Rena'Thras wrote:Another note on the vulnerability window:
A friend of mine put it very elegantly - This completely destroys the concept of a sandbox more than any other single change in the history of Eve.
.
At first I disputed his claim...but then I found I couldn't actually think of any other anti-sandbox change in Eve of this magnitude, and had to submit that he's right. I tend to dislike hyperbole, but I had to concede the point.
This change directly prevents sandbox/chaos theory random events from happening because it places an artificial, hard coded (to the mechanics set) rule that prevents interactions from occurring. That is, in the absence of it, Sov interactions can occur at any time and place - hence the sandbox. But once implemented, it presents an (more) artificial wall in the sandbox, a gatekeeper, saying you can only play with this part of the sandbox between the hours of 1400 and 1800.
.
So while my initial opposition to it was based on lore reasons (my forementioned "wtf" factor), I now also oppose it on the grounds of it being yet another policeman in the sandbox directing the children at play.
Considering that's one of the three major draws of Eve (space game, sandbox/shared universe, geopolitics), that's very unfortunate. It's one of the main things that gives Eve its appeal! Not a good thing to take away. Just another to add to the ever growing list of limitations placed on the "sandbox" nature of Eve. Jump range nerfs Fatigue Home System Clones
and the biggest nerf ever introduced to Eve CCP Fozzie
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1368
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 04:51:54 -
[3735] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:...and the biggest nerf ever introduced to Eve CCP Fozzie Didn't he help more or less buff all the T1 ships?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6602
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 05:45:18 -
[3736] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I was able to earn 108m an hour in Cobalt Edge with a carrier and oracle on grid Wow, 108 mil per hour (54 mil per hour per toon). Nice. In high sec you can use a Mach and make 86 mil per hour doing lvl 3 missions while being protected by CONCORD. So for the cost of using TWO characters and a CAPITAL SHIP that takes months to train for, and while flying in space where the space police won't help you, you get a whopping, mind blowing 22 million isk extra per hour total. Thanks for helping us empirically demonstrate the imbalances we were discussing, imbalances that end up distorting everything ccp tries to do with null sec. ...
Somehow something feels wrong here.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Flaming Butterfly
Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 05:52:33 -
[3737] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:While the current sovereignty system worked fine for many years, we see the need for a fundamental overhaul. We are excited to present the plans for a new sov system coming early this summer including: 1) No more grinding through hitpoints 2) Meaningful combat events distributed over the whole constellation 3) Space activity results in defensive bonus 4) Designated daily "Prime time" for alliances when their structures become vulnerable Read all about this new sov system, the mechanics and the fine details in CCP Fozzie's latest blog Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two!
This Entosis Link, for all purposes a "Sovereignty Warfare Link Module", need to be a sort of siege module that can only be fitted to: Combat BC, Fleet and Field Command Ships, Carrier, MOM and Titan
which are all more than capable (lorewise as being able to impart leadership bonuses very effectively) of equipping such an advanced system. We just engineered the things from sleepers/drifters so there has to be a ship capable of projecting the capsuleer's will over their enemy.
Entosis Link Strength T1 = 1; can only be fitted on BC, Carrier; 100km Entosis Link Strength T2 = 1; can only be fitted on CS, MOM, TITAN; 200km range
Combat BC +200% to Entosis Link Str (2) Carrier +700% to Entosis Link Str (7)
Command Ship +300% to Entosis Link Str (3) MOM +1500% to Entosis Link Str (15) TITAN +3000% to Entosis Link Str (30)
Bonus for Defenders -up to 100% boost for really well used and developed space Penalty for Attackers -up to 50% penalty
When Entosis link is active, the vessel goes into a 'broadcast' mode within the 100km range for T1 link and 200 for T2 MWD and MMJD cannot be activated and reduces their lock-range, scan res, targets -the device literally takes over the ship systems to exert the will of the pilots. Cannot active the Entosis link outside of it's range from structure... will deactivate and reduce your fleet's effectiveness -warping out does the same, just drops the points in area. Counter links ships are affected the same with system bonuses giving them an advantage, meaning many fewer needed to defend space -helluva battle of the wills there and still great pew-pew from the rest of the fleet.
Alliance A arrives in B's turf with 20 BC's, 8 command ships, 2 carriers, and a Titan fitted with Links. Alliance B has has maxed out the area and people love them. 50% penalty to E-Link Str to attackers, 100% bonus for defenders. Alliance A goes from 108 points but penalized to an effective 54 points.
The sov unit they are going after has a Entosis resistance rating of 40/5 meaning an aggressor must have at least 40 unmodified Entosis Strength to affect it coming from at least 5 sources. Alliance A has it even though for affect-time their strength is 54 points and can affect the structure.
Alliance B comes out to the structure with 50 T1 BC for an unmodified E-link Str of 100 points and with system bonus have 200 points. Alliance A was planning on this taking 30 minutes, but it's gonna take 2 hours minimum unless the points drop on the defender's side. Thankfully Alliance A has 60 people who just jumped in for pew-pew and wasting defending E-links. Alliance B rallies together their peeps for some pew pew against a Titan.
As both sides lose ships, their control points drop and finally A's control points drop below the 40 points needed to affect the structure and is forced to beg off even though Alliance B lost all their BC's and has 0 points... Even if that Titan and the 2 carriers are the only things left on the field and they have 44 unmodified points, they are only 3 and they need 2 more E-Link sources to affect it.
See what I did there... made the humble BC's pretty damn important and the big bad-ass ships commanders would have just as important while leaving the pvp pew-pew fleets elements doing exactly what they're designed to do -kill **** instead of raving to Thomas the Train Engine or Sesame Street with glo-sticks up their tailpipes.
For the Time Element, the E-Link Strength might be 100 points x the rating giving that structure 4000 points so Alliance A with their effective 54 points per cycle (1 minute?) will require 74 minutes uncontested to dominate it by chipping away at the "Firewall". Defender effective Str reinforces the Firewall for 100 points per cycle. Now, yes, this new system is largely aimed at unoccupied/undefended space. Hopefully, the EvE map will have large expanses of open territory -fighting room- for alliances and well established core systems which in the future could be "home worlds".
The above was a core worlds scenario involving 2 small alliances. If the aggressor had taken time to reduce those things that boost the defensive bonus to 100% and offensive penalty to 50%, they might have taken it faster.
Yes, CCP, great system if done with PVP in mind.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6602
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 06:01:37 -
[3738] - Quote
Hmm, I guess the big question is will an uberfleet just crush the objective with a huge amount of points. in your system
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
365
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 06:22:02 -
[3739] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:...and the biggest nerf ever introduced to Eve CCP Fozzie Didn't he help more or less buff all the T1 ships? LOL.. yes he did. Then promptly nerfed much of the ability to use them with fatigue.
Fozzie is also the mastermind behind rapid launchers - Aren't they just a wonder to behold. Rapid lights do see some use - because there is no alternative as heavy missiles launchers simply suck for anything other than level 3's and some lvl 4's. Rapid Heavies - I've had 200 of them on market for 6 months - So far sold 8 (and that was recently, when I decided to drop the price to 20% below Jita to try and get rid of them)
The 1 or 2 good changes Fozzie has masterminded are far outweighed by what is to come.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Seaghost Arthie
Dead Eternity
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 06:34:15 -
[3740] - Quote
My personal opinion is most of this is good for eve, as evidenced by the postings of a certain few. I'm not saying it's perfect but it's a damn good start. With some tweaking this could really do a lot to bring back small scale warfare with less chance of blobs, supers will be relegated to home system defense duties where they will shine, with some changes :) Small groups of supers spread throughout a region will be a smart defense, never put your eggs in one basket. I might be off on the super part but with the announcement of some of the proposed changes this seems very possible.
Also this will cause some whom are in null to rethink their training queues to maybe add some pvp skills to their repertoire. Miners now will need skills to defend their home systems, otherwise all will be for naught. I would imagine that some will make alts for this purpose, if they already haven't. And IMO if they are too lazy to defend their own space they deserve to lose it, period. And remembering that null is more endgame material, everyone should be willing to stand and defend their territory, just like in RL since so many like to compare Eve to RL. :)
And to the detractors please explain a system for SOV that gets rid of the grind, allows for smaller scaled warfare, and presents a more realistic fluid battlefield. All of the other proposals I have seen fall far short of what CCP envisions, most of the ideas would allow the donut to continue, hence the need for drastic change. The fluid battlefield concept they are proposing to introduce really brings a whole new element to the game, in RL battles are simultaneously fought over different objectives all the time, kudos to CCP for this addition.
Fortunately for all of us eve is evolving, as it must to maintain market share. Granted there will be ruffled feathers along the way but if you are such a shallow person that a game change can cause you to quit instead of learning to adapt we will be better off without you. |
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
723
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 06:44:43 -
[3741] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I was able to earn 108m an hour in Cobalt Edge with a carrier and oracle on grid Wow, 108 mil per hour (54 mil per hour per toon). Nice. In high sec you can use a Mach and make 86 mil per hour doing lvl 3 missions while being protected by CONCORD. So for the cost of using TWO characters and a CAPITAL SHIP that takes months to train for, and while flying in space where the space police won't help you, you get a whopping, mind blowing 22 million isk extra per hour total. Thanks for helping us empirically demonstrate the imbalances we were discussing, imbalances that end up distorting everything ccp tries to do with null sec.
Well I was getting a lot less then that doing level 4's.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
365
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 06:57:44 -
[3742] - Quote
Seaghost Arthie wrote:My personal opinion is most of this is good for eve, as evidenced by the postings of a certain few. I'm not saying it's perfect but it's a damn good start. With some tweaking this could really do a lot to bring back small scale warfare with less chance of blobs, supers will be relegated to home system defense duties where they will shine, with some changes :) Small groups of supers spread throughout a region will be a smart defense, never put your eggs in one basket. I might be off on the super part but with the announcement of some of the proposed changes this seems very possible.
Also this will cause some whom are in null to rethink their training queues to maybe add some pvp skills to their repertoire. Miners now will need skills to defend their home systems, otherwise all will be for naught. I would imagine that some will make alts for this purpose, if they already haven't. And IMO if they are too lazy to defend their own space they deserve to lose it, period. And remembering that null is more endgame material, everyone should be willing to stand and defend their territory, just like in RL since so many like to compare Eve to RL. :)
And to the detractors please explain a system for SOV that gets rid of the grind, allows for smaller scaled warfare, and presents a more realistic fluid battlefield. All of the other proposals I have seen fall far short of what CCP envisions, most of the ideas would allow the donut to continue, hence the need for drastic change. The fluid battlefield concept they are proposing to introduce really brings a whole new element to the game, in RL battles are simultaneously fought over different objectives all the time, kudos to CCP for this addition.
Fortunately for all of us eve is evolving, as it must to maintain market share. Granted there will be ruffled feathers along the way but if you are such a shallow person that a game change can cause you to quit instead of learning to adapt we will be better off without you. Small scale grinding is still grinding - Shoot the node, is grinding - Entosis module, is still grinding but to a fixed timetable. And seriously, if you think a 14,000 man alliance is only going to send a 50 man fleet, you deluding yourself, just as CCP is for thinking that same way. Large coalitions will pick their targets carefully and drive them out with sheer numbers, yes there will be killmails. Much like there is today, a 500 man fleet blaps a 50 man fleet. Only another large coalition is going to be a threat to a large coalition and they won't fight each other because they have no need to. Much the same as it is today; funny that.
RL war is not fought on a timetable to suit the combatants on both sides. Battles do not end after 4 hours nor do they wait until the timer says go to start fighting. If in fact RL wars were fought along the lines CCP is proposing for Eve, there would be no wars. Just lots of military personal sitting around waiting for the enemy to turn up, then chase and repel them with more Entosis modules.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
449
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 07:24:45 -
[3743] - Quote
The link cycle times should be reversed, and be separated into two different modules with each having proper T2 versions with the usual fitting and cap use drawbacks to balance their advantages. Numbers used for illustrative purposes only and don't represent months of planning and testing.
Entosis Connector I range 20km, cycle time 5min
Entosis Connector II range 25km, cycle time 4min
Entosis Link I range 200km, cycle time 10min
Entosis Link II range 250km, cycle time 8min
Higher positional risk, shorter exposure. Doesn't this feel more balanced? |
Anthar Thebess
954
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 07:44:53 -
[3744] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:The link cycle times should be reversed, and be separated into two different modules with each having proper T2 versions with the usual fitting and cap use drawbacks to balance their advantages. Numbers used for illustrative purposes only and don't represent months of planning and testing.
Entosis Connector I range 20km, cycle time 5min
Entosis Connector II range 25km, cycle time 4min
Entosis Link I range 200km, cycle time 10min
Entosis Link II range 250km, cycle time 8min
Higher positional risk, shorter exposure. Doesn't this feel more balanced? No because you are not giving enough time for people to form up , and move to this system. People needs time - without this it will be just mindless grind , and waiting for a noobspawn.
If you want to fight - you must give people enough time to form up.
What i missing here is again alliance capitol. So system where you are getting HUUUUGGGGGEEEEEE boost to your defensive abilities. Each alliance must have this in order for industry to be appealing. You need to move tons of stuff to station, and then produce something. Some production takes longer than time needed that you have for reinforce timers.
My suggestion. Allow each alliance to erect a capitol. This system cannot be contested until all systems around it are lost. Freeport mode on this system is extended by 1 additional day. Alliance can change capitol only once per 3 months (this timer is reset when all sov belonging to alliance is lost). System designated to Capitol must have max indexes for 3 days( or maybe more) All systems around it must be controlled by its own alliance.
1 boosted system, will help a lot for nullsec industry guys , and also make more people feel they are home.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Seaghost Arthie
Dead Eternity
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 07:47:20 -
[3745] - Quote
[/quote]Small scale grinding is still grinding - Shoot the node, is grinding - Entosis module, is still grinding but to a fixed timetable. And seriously, if you think a 14,000 man alliance is only going to send a 50 man fleet, you deluding yourself, just as CCP is for thinking that same way. Large coalitions will pick their targets carefully and drive them out with sheer numbers, yes there will be killmails. Much like there is today, a 500 man fleet blaps a 50 man fleet. Only another large coalition is going to be a threat to a large coalition and they won't fight each other because they have no need to. Much the same as it is today; funny that.
RL war is not fought on a timetable to suit the combatants on both sides. Battles do not end after 4 hours nor do they wait until the timer says go to start fighting. If in fact RL wars were fought along the lines CCP is proposing for Eve, there would be no wars. Just lots of military personal sitting around waiting for the enemy to turn up, then chase and repel them with more Entosis modules.[/quote]
If looking at the trees then this is how it appears, however when looking at the forest then the landscape changes. Your points are valid to a degree however let me throw this out there.
In region A there are 5 alliances, 1 that is reviled by the other 4. But 1 is much larger than the other 4 making them more vulnerable in actuality. This is because groups 2 thru 4 come up with a plan that causes 1 to spread out their forces to deal with multiple fronts at a single time. Obviously group 1 is at a strong disadvantage until the numbers game starts concerning def bonuses vs attacking bonuses. Then depending on where groups 2 thru 4 strike at and their group sizes will determine the eventual outcome depending on the amount of forces that group 1 can field. In some cases sacrifices will have to be made to ensure keeping key territories. If an R64 moon is far into someone elses sphere of influence then its vulnerable depending on force composition holding the system and the moon might have to be abandoned.
Now lets extrapolate that out to todays current situation in null. I'm no expert but there are lots of folks down there looking for content and they will be chomping at the bit to slowly be taking territory from certain named coalitions just for the tears. And this will revitalize the mercenary groups, they will be needed badly by the majority. Hero for one will have a much easier time taking SoV and holding it with the reduced needs for supers. And small gang warfare is much more engaging for the members than large scale fleet battles with massive tidi. I do predict that there will be lots of skirmishes breaking out if this goes live, lots of peeps have axes to grind and are like minded.
As to the big debate on timers I say this, come up with another idea that fits within the rest of the scope of what CCP is trying to do. I understand some will be upset because alliance A's timer is set just after downtime so they have to set their alarm clocks to go do battle, sorry life is tough sometimes, buck up. If you are really so dedicated to the game that you are a full time null player that wants to war then this is a minor inconvenience. Back in the late 90's when Everquest was the king I remember setting alarms to kill boss mobs, if we did it back then, you can do it now.
But until all of this goes live, or at least to test, its all speculation as we have no hard numbers yet. Only time will tell. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
449
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 08:00:34 -
[3746] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:The link cycle times should be reversed, and be separated into two different modules with each having proper T2 versions with the usual fitting and cap use drawbacks to balance their advantages. Numbers used for illustrative purposes only and don't represent months of planning and testing.
Entosis Connector I range 20km, cycle time 5min
Entosis Connector II range 25km, cycle time 4min
Entosis Link I range 200km, cycle time 10min
Entosis Link II range 250km, cycle time 8min
Higher positional risk, shorter exposure. Doesn't this feel more balanced? No because you are not giving enough time for people to form up , and move to this system. People needs time - without this it will be just mindless grind , and waiting for a noobspawn. If you want to fight - you must give people enough time to form up.
My suggestion increases the cycle times from the original, but anyway, these are the module cycle times, the process itself starts only after this first cycle complete, and it's duration depends on the system sov stats. Worst case scenario would be 10+40min. Best case scenario 8+10min.
Any competent entity can form up in <10 minutes to counter a roaming gang especially when their intel channels give early warning. If you can't do that, or there's a proper siege fleet entosing your structures, then you need to postpone your formup for the main event and the actual fights.
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2913
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 08:10:17 -
[3747] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I was able to earn 108m an hour in Cobalt Edge with a carrier and oracle on grid Wow, 108 mil per hour (54 mil per hour per toon). Nice. In high sec you can use a Mach and make 86 mil per hour doing lvl 3 missions while being protected by CONCORD. So for the cost of using TWO characters and a CAPITAL SHIP that takes months to train for, and while flying in space where the space police won't help you, you get a whopping, mind blowing 22 million isk extra per hour total. Thanks for helping us empirically demonstrate the imbalances we were discussing, imbalances that end up distorting everything ccp tries to do with null sec.
Jeez Jenn, let it go man.
CCP ain't listening to you.
This is not a signature.
|
Seaghost Arthie
Dead Eternity
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 08:10:26 -
[3748] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:The link cycle times should be reversed, and be separated into two different modules with each having proper T2 versions with the usual fitting and cap use drawbacks to balance their advantages. Numbers used for illustrative purposes only and don't represent months of planning and testing.
Entosis Connector I range 20km, cycle time 5min
Entosis Connector II range 25km, cycle time 4min
Entosis Link I range 200km, cycle time 10min
Entosis Link II range 250km, cycle time 8min
Higher positional risk, shorter exposure. Doesn't this feel more balanced? No because you are not giving enough time for people to form up , and move to this system. People needs time - without this it will be just mindless grind , and waiting for a noobspawn. If you want to fight - you must give people enough time to form up. What i missing here is again alliance capitol. So system where you are getting HUUUUGGGGGEEEEEE boost to your defensive abilities. Each alliance must have this in order for industry to be appealing. You need to move tons of stuff to station, and then produce something. Some production takes longer than time needed that you have for reinforce timers. My suggestion. Allow each alliance to erect a capitol. This system cannot be contested until all systems around it are lost. Freeport mode on this system is extended by 1 additional day. Alliance can change capitol only once per 3 months (this timer is reset when all sov belonging to alliance is lost). System designated to Capitol must have max indexes for 3 days( or maybe more) All systems around it must be controlled by its own alliance. 1 boosted system, will help a lot for nullsec industry guys , and also make more people feel they are home. For example. So lets look on the Brave issue , where their capitol don't have any indexes : http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Catch/GE-8JV Brave decide that this system will be their capitol , so they dedicate them self and start to grind indexes for this system. After 2 days and 5000 dead mining atrons they are ready to do it. Capitol gets erected. Now they don't have to care about doing any thing in this system. It is safe as long as systems : V-3 3-0 AX- are under their control. Brave leadership can also think about resetting TEST and taking YHN in order to have additional system shielding their capitol.
I like this idea as it mimics real life to a degree. Also only bigger alliances should be able to have a capital and this method seems to ensure that this would be the case as it would be hard for a small alliance to control the surrounding 4 systems with the proposed changes.
The tough part would be getting a good and fair number for the boosts this would give but testing could figure that out. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 08:35:46 -
[3749] - Quote
I wrote my thoughts about the system in my latest article ( http://massivelyop.net/2015/03/08/eve-evolved-sovereignty-2-0-needs-some-work/ ) but I'd like to run through the main points here on the forum for more visibility:
Vulnerability windows and reinforcement timers: There's been a lot of rage about the four hour vulnerability window, but I think it's a great idea. The problem is that vulnerability windows are fundamentally incompatible with reinforcement timers. CCP seems to be under the impression that people will actually defend against the first attack on a structure that knocks it into reinforced mode as long as it's their prime time, but why would they bother?
If something gets attacked in the new system, you can either cobble together a match patch defense fleet within the 10-40 mins before the structure is reinforced, or ignore it and spend TWO FULL DAYS preparing for the exact minute that it comes out of reinforced mode. Tell me which of those sounds more likely to actually happen. The initial entosis attack on a structure is not a credible threat, especially if anyone with a frigate and small tech 1 module can do it. If CCP wants people to defend against attacks during their prime time, they need to give people enough time to respond and some REAL consequences for not responding.
The "Main Event" is artificial and gamesy: In the new system, why must we capture stuff by playing this new faction warfare style control point minigame? Why do control points magically appear throughout the constellation if we're trying to capture a space station off someone? I'm all for more interesting battles that can split a fleet across multiple targets in a constellation, but this feels really fake and forced.
I take exception to the idea that we even need some kind of special gameplay mechanic spawning control points for us to fight over. Devs have tried artificially creating flashpoints for PvP in the past, and it never works. EVE is a PvP sandbox whose most enticing feature is unpredictable emergent gameplay, why would you sabotage that? We don't need swings and slides, just give us some buckets and spades and maybe a little water for a moat and some tiny little flags.
An alternative sov system: Here's a much simpler and more intuitive sov system that still uses most of the proposal:
- There are NO reinforcement timers on any structures. Instead, they're vulnerable to capture during your alliance's vulnerability window.
- Each structure has an ownership rating out of 4 or 5.
- Using an Entosis module to capture a structure takes about 40 minutes and reduces the ownership rating by 1 point.
- Each structure can only lose a maximum of 1 point per day.
- If ownership drops to 0, the structure becomes neutral and can be captured the next day, or ownership switches immediately to the attacker.
- Every day that a structure isn't successfully attacked, it regains 1-2 points of ownership automatically.
- Split the Entosis module into a small Defensive version anyone can use to block capture and a capital sized Offensive version that's required to capture something.
There's a simple, easy to understand and completely self-balancing system for territorial warfare. Instead of knocking someone's station into reinforced and then waiting 48 hours before taking on some bizarre control point PvP minigame, you would form up daily fleets during the target alliance's vulnerability window and try to capture as many objectives as possible. It would be a great way to draw out fights as alliances will be forced to defend their space for those four hours per day or at least block capture with entosis ships, and if someone wants to legitimately threaten your ownership they have to put at least one carrier on the line.
The end result will be daily battles for at least five days, each of which could be a really good fight and has the potential to escalate because there's a capital ship locked down for 40 minutes and it can't be remote repaired. And this system should naturally lead to emergent strategies like splitting your fleet to hit multiple targets at once or keeping an enemy fleet busy in one place while you try to capture another because it's more efficient since we're using single entosis links rather than combined damage now. We don't need CCP's fake constellation-wide battles to force people to do this.
Before anyone kicks up a stink about removing reinforcement timers, keep in mind that with this system you'd have to capture a structure five separate times on five separate days before it'd be yours. That gives the defender a lot more heads up than the current system about the fact that they're going to lose a structure unless they organise a defense fleet, the only difference is that the attacker could hit the structure at any point during each four hour period. Removing reinforcement timers means also alliances will find it difficult to hold onto star systems they don't actively use since they'll need to respond to threats within 40 mins or so.
Other ideas: Jovian Listening Posts As the devs are unlikely to toss their constellation-wide PvP idea out the window, I would suggest that it be reappropriated for another purpose. Give each nullsec constellation a Jovian Listening Post structure in a central system, which can be captured to give your alliance control over the local chat in that constellation. We could be allowed to set the constellation to delayed mode, for example. Or we could get access to a constellation channel or a new intel pane that shows all pilots in the constellation. It makes sense to be fighting over control nodes throughout the constellation if it's linked to a constellation-wide service, and this ties in with the current storyline. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
365
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 09:52:50 -
[3750] - Quote
Nyphur wrote:I wrote my thoughts about the system in my latest article ( http://massivelyop.net/2015/03/08/eve-evolved-sovereignty-2-0-needs-some-work/ ) but I'd like to run through the main points here on the forum for more visibility: Vulnerability windows and reinforcement timers:There's been a lot of rage about the four hour vulnerability window, but I think it's a great idea. The problem is that vulnerability windows are fundamentally incompatible with reinforcement timers. CCP seems to be under the impression that people will actually defend against the first attack on a structure that knocks it into reinforced mode as long as it's their prime time, but why would they bother? If something gets attacked in the new system, you can either cobble together a match patch defense fleet within the 10-40 mins before the structure is reinforced, or ignore it and spend TWO FULL DAYS preparing for the exact minute that it comes out of reinforced mode. Tell me which of those sounds more likely to actually happen. The initial entosis attack on a structure is not a credible threat, especially if anyone with a frigate and small tech 1 module can do it. If CCP wants people to defend against attacks during their prime time, they need to give people enough time to respond and some REAL consequences for not responding. The "Main Event" is artificial and gamesy:In the new system, why must we capture stuff by playing this new faction warfare style control point minigame? Why do control points magically appear throughout the constellation if we're trying to capture a space station off someone? I'm all for more interesting battles that can split a fleet across multiple targets in a constellation, but this feels really fake and forced. I take exception to the idea that we even need some kind of special gameplay mechanic spawning control points for us to fight over. Devs have tried artificially creating flashpoints for PvP in the past, and it never works. EVE is a PvP sandbox whose most enticing feature is unpredictable emergent gameplay, why would you sabotage that? We don't need swings and slides, just give us some buckets and spades and maybe a little water for a moat and some tiny little flags. An alternative sov system:Here's a much simpler and more intuitive sov system that still uses most of the proposal:
- There are NO reinforcement timers on any structures. Instead, they're vulnerable to capture during your alliance's vulnerability window.
- Each structure has an ownership rating out of 4 or 5.
- Using an Entosis module to capture a structure takes about 40 minutes and reduces the ownership rating by 1 point.
- Each structure can only lose a maximum of 1 point per day.
- If ownership drops to 0, the structure becomes neutral and can be captured the next day, or ownership switches immediately to the attacker.
- Every day that a structure isn't successfully attacked, it regains 1-2 points of ownership automatically.
- Split the Entosis module into a small Defensive version anyone can use to block capture and a capital sized Offensive version that's required to capture something.
There's a simple, easy to understand and completely self-balancing system for territorial warfare. Instead of knocking someone's station into reinforced and then waiting 48 hours before taking on some bizarre control point PvP minigame, you would form up daily fleets during the target alliance's vulnerability window and try to capture as many objectives as possible. It would be a great way to draw out fights as alliances will be forced to defend their space for those four hours per day or at least block capture with entosis ships, and if someone wants to legitimately threaten your ownership they have to put at least one carrier on the line. The end result will be daily battles for at least five days, each of which could be a really good fight and has the potential to escalate because there's a capital ship locked down for 40 minutes and it can't be remote repaired. And this system should naturally lead to emergent strategies like splitting your fleet to hit multiple targets at once or keeping an enemy fleet busy in one place while you try to capture another because it's more efficient since we're using single entosis links rather than combined damage now. We don't need CCP's fake constellation-wide battles to force people to do this. Before anyone kicks up a stink about removing reinforcement timers, keep in mind that with this system you'd have to capture a structure five separate times on five separate days before it'd be yours. That gives the defender a lot more heads up than the current system about the fact that they're going to lose a structure unless they organise a defense fleet, the only difference is that the attacker could hit the structure at any point during each four hour period. Removing reinforcement timers means also alliances will find it difficult to hold onto star systems they don't actively use since they'll need to respond to threats within 40 mins or so. I like this, my only concern is it removes all but the "biggest" "small alliances" from ever holding sov. The 4 hour window is just to much for the majority of smaller alliances to cover.
Maybe an alternative could be - The "prime time" window is governed by member numbers. Prime Time based on Alliance numbers; (examples only) 0-1000, 1.5 hour window 1,001 - 2,000 :- 2 hours 2,001 - 4,000 :- 3 hours 4,001 - 10,000 :- 4 hours 10,001 + :- 8 hours but can be split into 2 X 4 hour sessions
Something like this would allow smaller alliances face less risk because they can't field the numbers for four hours and also expose the big alliances to more conflict to keep their member numbers occupied. It also gives alliances choice - Do we strive to be a mega alliance and get as big as we can or do we stay relatively small.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 10:47:22 -
[3751] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: I like this, my only concern is it removes all but the "biggest" "small alliances" from ever holding sov. The 4 hour window is just to much for the majority of smaller alliances to cover.
Maybe an alternative could be - The "prime time" window is governed by member numbers. Prime Time based on Alliance numbers; (examples only) 0-1000, 1.5 hour window 1,001 - 2,000 :- 2 hours 2,001 - 4,000 :- 3 hours 4,001 - 10,000 :- 4 hours 10,001 + :- 8 hours but can be split into 2 X 4 hour sessions
Something like this would allow smaller alliances face less risk because they can't field the numbers for four hours and also expose the big alliances to more conflict to keep their member numbers occupied. It also gives alliances choice - Do we strive to be a mega alliance and get as big as we can or do we stay relatively small.
Variable vulnerability windows of some kind would definitely help small alliances, it's really a question of what factors it should vary based on. Alliance size is one option, though it may just encourage alliances to break apart and work together unofficially. Another option would be to give each structure a separate 2 hour timer and disallow overlapping timers within a star system. That way a very small alliance could claim only the station in a system and keep watch for only 2 hours per day, but full occupancy (station, ihub and flag) would require 6 hours.
Personally, I think some kind of system where you gain a tangible benefit but it costs you extra vulnerability hours is the way to go. Start the system out on 1 or 2 hours and add an hour for each major ihub upgrade. Or start it at 4-6 hours and add pairs of mutually exclusive options to the ihub/station/flag where one of them is reduced vulnerability time by 1 hour and the other is a big tangible benefit. I'd lean toward the second option there as the first one makes empty systems easier to defend and that's counter-productive.
Either way this is just balancing numbers, the important part is the core sov gameplay. If what's in the the devblog turns out to be CCP's final design (and I suspect it may be based on how much effort was put into it), it's not going to work. |
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
89
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 10:48:49 -
[3752] - Quote
So much hate towards CCP. People crying of Fozzie nerfing everything. Yet they fail to see how much more balanced things are now than they were before. "ability to use t1 cruisers were nerfed to oblivion by jump fatigue" Honestly I find claims like that hilarious. T1 cruisers can use gates you know.
You people need to chill out. The proposed sov changes may not create the best ideal sov mechanics, but atleast it will be way better than it is now. Most of players ideas on this thread are outright useless. Though out by narrow minded ppl wanting only to buff their own way of sov living.
I agree that the proposed changes may not be the ideal situation for my way of living, but atleast it stirs the nest. If I would have it my way, it would penaltize ppl of having more sove than they can use. It would nerf lsec FW and hsec incursion incomes so much, that 0.0 would be the only feasable way of keeping your accounts plexed. The occupancy model would include pvp as it's main meter and most important meter. It would let us destroy player built stations. It would make it possible to claim lsec to nullsec and hsec to lsec (and vice versa). It would nerf the living **** out of passive alliance level income and make all income individual level. It would let the supercapitals to be docked. It would introduce more endgame content. It would give older players the edge on on their skillpoints to some usage. But hey. I cant have it my way. I have only the CCP way to play this game with. And yet I keep playing. As are all of you whiney faglets too. And most of you keep doing so. As will I.
Adapt or die. Been the keyphrase in eve for as long as this game has excisted. I hope to damn it will keep doing so. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
479
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 11:31:50 -
[3753] - Quote
Nyphur wrote:An alternative sov system:Here's a much simpler and more intuitive sov system that still uses most of the proposal:
- There are NO reinforcement timers on any structures. Instead, they're vulnerable to capture during your alliance's vulnerability window.
- Each structure has an ownership rating out of 4 or 5.
- Using an Entosis module to capture a structure takes about 40 minutes and reduces the ownership rating by 1 point.
- Each structure can only lose a maximum of 1 point per day.
- If ownership drops to 0, the structure becomes neutral and can be captured the next day, or ownership switches immediately to the attacker.
- Every day that a structure isn't successfully attacked, it regains 1-2 points of ownership automatically.
- Split the Entosis module into a small Defensive version anyone can use to block capture and a capital sized Offensive version that's required to capture something.
I really like the tug-of-war aspect of this, akin to the old POS-based system but without endless structure shooting. This makes it possible for an attacker to make gradual progress without being dropped back to square 1 for losing a single fight.
The simplest metric here would be to re-purpose the current Strategic Index, and have it increase by 1 for each 24 hour period it's not successfully attacked. As this index is tied to the capture timer, this creates an increasing sense of urgency as each day of failed defense makes subsequent days harder.
The one part I would object to here is the special capital-sized link being required. By far the biggest flaw in both previous sov systems has been the reliance on needing the biggest ships, especially capitals and supers. This sets a barrier for entry into nullsec for smaller groups and implies only the richest side should win. I would however argue that there should be an element of risk/reward for using more costlier hulls. How about a capture time modifier based on hull type? Low-risk frigates would take twice as long to capture as a battleship, with a slight bonus (perhaps -10%) for capitals. This provides an incentive to use larger ships without making them essential. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
723
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 11:35:39 -
[3754] - Quote
Nyphur wrote:I wrote my thoughts about the system in my latest article ( http://massivelyop.net/2015/03/08/eve-evolved-sovereignty-2-0-needs-some-work/ ) but I'd like to run through the main points here on the forum for more visibility: Vulnerability windows and reinforcement timers:There's been a lot of rage about the four hour vulnerability window, but I think it's a great idea. The problem is that vulnerability windows are fundamentally incompatible with reinforcement timers. CCP seems to be under the impression that people will actually defend against the first attack on a structure that knocks it into reinforced mode as long as it's their prime time, but why would they bother? If something gets attacked in the new system, you can either cobble together a match patch defense fleet within the 10-40 mins before the structure is reinforced, or ignore it and spend TWO FULL DAYS preparing for the exact minute that it comes out of reinforced mode. Tell me which of those sounds more likely to actually happen. The initial entosis attack on a structure is not a credible threat, especially if anyone with a frigate and small tech 1 module can do it. If CCP wants people to defend against attacks during their prime time, they need to give people enough time to respond and some REAL consequences for not responding. The "Main Event" is artificial and gamesy:In the new system, why must we capture stuff by playing this new faction warfare style control point minigame? Why do control points magically appear throughout the constellation if we're trying to capture a space station off someone? I'm all for more interesting battles that can split a fleet across multiple targets in a constellation, but this feels really fake and forced. I take exception to the idea that we even need some kind of special gameplay mechanic spawning control points for us to fight over. Devs have tried artificially creating flashpoints for PvP in the past, and it never works. EVE is a PvP sandbox whose most enticing feature is unpredictable emergent gameplay, why would you sabotage that? We don't need swings and slides, just give us some buckets and spades and maybe a little water for a moat and some tiny little flags. An alternative sov system:Here's a much simpler and more intuitive sov system that still uses most of the proposal:
- There are NO reinforcement timers on any structures. Instead, they're vulnerable to capture during your alliance's vulnerability window.
- Each structure has an ownership rating out of 4 or 5.
- Using an Entosis module to capture a structure takes about 40 minutes and reduces the ownership rating by 1 point.
- Each structure can only lose a maximum of 1 point per day.
- If ownership drops to 0, the structure becomes neutral and can be captured the next day, or ownership switches immediately to the attacker.
- Every day that a structure isn't successfully attacked, it regains 1-2 points of ownership automatically.
- Split the Entosis module into a small Defensive version anyone can use to block capture and a capital sized Offensive version that's required to capture something.
There's a simple, easy to understand and completely self-balancing system for territorial warfare. Instead of knocking someone's station into reinforced and then waiting 48 hours before taking on some bizarre control point PvP minigame, you would form up daily fleets during the target alliance's vulnerability window and try to capture as many objectives as possible. It would be a great way to draw out fights as alliances will be forced to defend their space for those four hours per day or at least block capture with entosis ships, and if someone wants to legitimately threaten your ownership they have to put at least one carrier on the line. The end result will be daily battles for at least five days, each of which could be a really good fight and has the potential to escalate because there's a capital ship locked down for 40 minutes and it can't be remote repaired. And this system should naturally lead to emergent strategies like splitting your fleet to hit multiple targets at once or keeping an enemy fleet busy in one place while you try to capture another because it's more efficient since we're using single entosis links rather than combined damage now. We don't need CCP's fake constellation-wide battles to force people to do this. Before anyone kicks up a stink about removing reinforcement timers, keep in mind that with this system you'd have to capture a structure five separate times on five separate days before it'd be yours. That gives the defender a lot more heads up than the current system about the fact that they're going to lose a structure unless they organise a defense fleet, the only difference is that the attacker could hit the structure at any point during each four hour period. Removing reinforcement timers means also alliances will find it difficult to hold onto star systems they don't actively use since they'll need to respond to threats within 40 mins or so. Other ideas: Jovian Listening PostsAs the devs are unlikely to toss their constellation-wide PvP idea out the window, I would suggest that it be reappropriated for another purpose. Give each nullsec constellation a Jovian Listening Post structure in a central system, which can be captured to give your alliance control over the local chat in that constellation. We could be allowed to set the constellation to delayed mode, for example. Or we could get access to a constellation channel or a new intel pane that shows all pilots in the constellation. It makes sense to be fighting over control nodes throughout the constellation if it's linked to a constellation-wide service, and this ties in with the current storyline.
I like this too, in fact very much so...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Freedom Nadd
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 12:07:12 -
[3755] - Quote
Well after looking at the launcher this morning, it is blatantly obvious that CCP is in full on Greed is Good mode and is not open to any feedback that does not tell them what a great idea it is.
Looks like a summer of making high sec burn is on the cards once more. |
Freedom Nadd
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 12:22:41 -
[3756] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I was able to earn 108m an hour in Cobalt Edge with a carrier and oracle on grid Wow, 108 mil per hour (54 mil per hour per toon). Nice. In high sec you can use a Mach and make 86 mil per hour doing lvl 3 missions while being protected by CONCORD. So for the cost of using TWO characters and a CAPITAL SHIP that takes months to train for, and while flying in space where the space police won't help you, you get a whopping, mind blowing 22 million isk extra per hour total. Thanks for helping us empirically demonstrate the imbalances we were discussing, imbalances that end up distorting everything ccp tries to do with null sec. Jeez Jenn, let it go man. CCP ain't listening to you.
CCP aint listening full stop. The employee's that have an actual history of listening all jumped ship a long time ago, what we have left are very much the graveyard shift driving the good boat EVE into the ground.
It is the yearly pattern, distract the plebians with a fake popularity contest aka CSM and while that is going on screw the game as hard as possible. |
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
379
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 12:40:07 -
[3757] - Quote
Ugly Eric wrote:So much hate towards CCP. People crying of Fozzie nerfing everything. Yet they fail to see how much more balanced things are now than they were before. "ability to use t1 cruisers were nerfed to oblivion by jump fatigue" Honestly I find claims like that hilarious. T1 cruisers can use gates you know.
You people need to chill out. The proposed sov changes may not create the best ideal sov mechanics, but atleast it will be way better than it is now. Most of players ideas on this thread are outright useless. Though out by narrow minded ppl wanting only to buff their own way of sov living.
I agree that the proposed changes may not be the ideal situation for my way of living, but atleast it stirs the nest. If I would have it my way, it would penaltize ppl of having more sove than they can use. It would nerf lsec FW and hsec incursion incomes so much, that 0.0 would be the only feasable way of keeping your accounts plexed. The occupancy model would include pvp as it's main meter and most important meter. It would let us destroy player built stations. It would make it possible to claim lsec to nullsec and hsec to lsec (and vice versa). It would nerf the living **** out of passive alliance level income and make all income individual level. It would let the supercapitals to be docked. It would introduce more endgame content. It would give older players the edge on on their skillpoints to some usage. But hey. I cant have it my way. I have only the CCP way to play this game with. And yet I keep playing. As are all of you whiney faglets too. And most of you keep doing so. As will I.
Adapt or die. Been the keyphrase in eve for as long as this game has excisted. I hope to damn it will keep doing so. I love you Eric.
Eric4CSMXI |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 13:02:41 -
[3758] - Quote
xttz wrote:The one part I would object to here is the special capital-sized link being required. By far the biggest flaw in both previous sov systems has been the reliance on needing the biggest ships, especially capitals and supers. This sets a barrier for entry into nullsec for smaller groups and implies only the richest side should win. I would however argue that there should be an element of risk/reward for using more costlier hulls. How about a capture time modifier based on hull type? Low-risk frigates would take twice as long to capture as a battleship, with a slight bonus (perhaps -10%) for capitals. This provides an incentive to use larger ships without making them essential. The only reason I suggested limiting capturing to capitals was to make sure the attacker puts something worth killing on the line, both to discourage sov trolling and to encourage defense fleets to respond to attacks. I'm sure we all have stories similar to B-R5RB but on a micro scale where someone blurted out in alliance chat that they have a carrier tackled, and if we could make that a more common occurence, those four hours of defense fleets each day could be amazing fun.
Your compromise sounds perfect though, and it should be easy to implement by just having different sizes of entosis module that capture at different rates after the initial cycle. People could then choose whether they want to risk an interceptor for 60 minutes, a battleship for 40, or a carrier for 25, for example. |
Lord Zeuus
Intent Unspecified Fatal Ascension
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 14:07:42 -
[3759] - Quote
CCP if you're listening:
Delayed local in Null No Fleet Warps Supers that have no real DPS use SOV that can be taken by a frigate
if those are goals that become reality then I'm out. |
Josef Djugashvilis
2913
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 14:09:29 -
[3760] - Quote
Lord Zeuus wrote:CCP if you're listening:
Delayed local in Null No Fleet Warps Supers that have no real DPS use SOV that can be taken by a frigate
if those are goals that become reality then I'm out.
Your can only work if you threaten to unsub your zillion alts as well.
This is not a signature.
|
|
Lord Zeuus
Intent Unspecified Fatal Ascension
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 14:22:09 -
[3761] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Lord Zeuus wrote:CCP if you're listening:
Delayed local in Null No Fleet Warps Supers that have no real DPS use SOV that can be taken by a frigate
if those are goals that become reality then I'm out. Your can only work if you threaten to unsub your zillion alts as well.
If they're interested, or if they're counting, I'm sure they can see the accounts I pay for. With all the changes over the years I have never posted a "or else I'll unsub threat". Idle threats are useless. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2849
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 14:35:25 -
[3762] - Quote
Would you guys all please unsub now and get it over with so CCP can move forward and away from "Sov Rent Online"? If you would have provided content instead of "blue donut online" none of this would have happened. Your bad I guess.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2850
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 15:04:34 -
[3763] - Quote
Nyphur I've read your stuff over the years about making the game less artificial and more immersive. I thought you would suggest something different.
Suggestion 1: Instead of random anomalies appearing in space, CCP should allow 0.0 XXX structure owners to put up XXX amplifiers at random spots within a Constellation - two per system per structure (a main one, and a backup). These amplifiers amplify the effects of the structure (provide bonuses). The bigger the constellation, the higher the bonuses (geography matters). The amplifiers are immune to scan probes. The main amplifiers are activated once the structure XXX is reinforced. The backups are activated once the main one goes down (after, say 10 minutes). And by anchoring, I mean 20 of these things can be put into a destroyer, and it takes about as long to anchor as a mobile depot. Maybe instead of "main and backup" the backup amplifiers are activated at random after a main one goes down.
This way, sov is reinforced not by time but by players actively "building fortress walls" in their area. Edit 1: This also moves towards the goal of "Player Built Everything" in Eve. Edit 2: You could also put up the amplifiers in any system within XXX LY from structure. Put even more weird geography at play.
In the end, essentially the same sov mechanic as proposed by CCP, but less "artificial."
Suggestion 2: Allow BOTH entosis whatever module OR DPS to put a structure into reinforce. 10 minutes = POCO level reinforcement, and scale it up from there. Doesn't make sense that a structure can't also be reinforced through damage.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
92
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 15:11:18 -
[3764] - Quote
Lord Zeuus wrote:CCP if you're listening:
Delayed local in Null No Fleet Warps Supers that have no real DPS use SOV that can be taken by a frigate
if those are goals that become reality then I'm out.
Stop waiting, just unsub now, and make EvE a better place for us all. Pls take all your like minded friends with you away from the game o7 |
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 15:15:25 -
[3765] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Would you guys all please unsub now and get it over with so CCP can move forward and away from "Sov Rent Online"? If you would have provided content instead of "blue donut online" none of this would have happened. Your bad I guess.
It looks like we are already unsubbing. Average online numbers from 2010 including 2013 49k. Apr 14 to Mar 15 37k average online ppl.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2850
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 15:17:15 -
[3766] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Would you guys all please unsub now and get it over with so CCP can move forward and away from "Sov Rent Online"? If you would have provided content instead of "blue donut online" none of this would have happened. Your bad I guess. It looks like we are already unsubbing. Average online numbers from 2010 including 2013 49k. Apr 14 to Mar 15 37k average online ppl. Thanks for making room for younger players. +1
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
PANZER1233000
SUPREME LEAGUE KILLER Almost Awesome.
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 15:28:52 -
[3767] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Finally caught up with the thread. :) Hey folks, thanks for the feedback so far. I spent most of the day at work today reading feedback (here, on twitter, on reddit, in slack and just about everywhere else), taking notes, and discussing the feedback with the CSM and with our team here in the office. Thanks to all the people that have posted constructive feedback so far, in any of those places. I want to reassure people that we've announced these plans this early for a reason. We want to take advantage of the time this gives us to carefully look at feedback and respond without needing to rush anything. In the past we probably would have waited until Fanfest just to get the reveal moment, but at this point we've learned as a company how much more important substance is than spectacle. I've noticed a fair bit of skepticism about my comments that this design is built to be flexible, since similar phrases were used back in 2009. I too remember the launch of Dominion sov from the perspective of a player (I'm on record that Dominion is my least favourite EVE expansion) and I can't blame people for being cautious. This is the kind of thing where actions always speak louder than words, so I'll just say that I hope that for many of you the actions you've seen from CCP recently have increased your trust that we will follow through. And for those of you that are still unconvinced, my goal is to change some of your minds with our upcoming actions in this area of Nullsec and Sov. Since this thread is a bit hectic, we're currently planning to do approach some of the conversation surrounding these changes a little differently. We'll be reading all the feedback here and elsewhere, and then pulling specific issues into their own dev blogs and own threads for further targeted discussion with fewer distractions. It's a bit of an experiment but I think it has a lot of potential. After discussing the early feedback with the team here, we've decided to begin this feedback and iteration process with a focus on the time zone mechanics. We're seeing a ton of discussion and quite a bit of displeasure over the time zone mechanics as they are laid out in the blog. So you're going to see us asking a lot of questions in a number of different areas to the players who have opinions on the way we handle time zones in Sov. The goal is to get to the core of the concerns people are expressing about these mechanics, figure out what player needs we are missing in this draft, and see if we can't design a system that meets more of those needs more effectively. I don't expect we're going to make everybody happy, as time zone mechanics are one of the stickiest design issues in a worldwide single shard MMO. However we do think it's likely that your feedback can help get us to a better design than what we have right now. I'll also probably be quickly spinning off a discussion of the module balance surrounding the Entosis Link, since that's an area where I expect we can calm some fears relatively easily. The short version is that we have all the tools of EVE's module design at our disposal to ensure that no specific tactics get out of hand. So if problems show up in discussion and playtesting we're happy to let players try to find a counter and then relatively easily step in if that counter doesn't materialize. There's a lot of other areas where we're seeing your concern, and we're not forgetting about any of them. Keep posting your feedback calmly and constructively, keep talking to each other, keep theorycrafting and blogging and podcasting. As people spend more time discussing and thinking about the implications of these changes, we know that the collective EVE hive mind will have a lot to offer, as it has in the past. I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok?
Maybe something from this renovation work, but that would not lose what is already there and everyone was happy - make one region each NPC faction with the old system Sovereignty, other regions do with the new system Sovereignty.
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 15:31:33 -
[3768] - Quote
In general, I agree with the idea behind this changes and I expec they will turn nullsec into something more active and fun that it is today.
I specially like the defense multiplier and how it will break the actual N+1 tactic to something more in the line of -+3n+1 or 4n+1, and the varied possibilities for strategies in the battle for the command nodes.
Here I foresee a problem, and that is that it will be neccessary to have more FC than now to have the flexibility to control de batlescape. It will lead in the close future to cries demanding the nerf of intelligence, because it is overpowered.
Due to this, I think that the main task for an alliance attacking out of the vulnerability windows will be to degrade the different indexes of the owning alliance, to reduce the odds in favor of the defender. It is neccessary that the attacking party can reduce all the indices, even the strategic one because it will be crucial to win and will provide some content out of prime time.
Related to this, and to reduce the grinding I would prefer the military index and mining index (I think that the industrial index need to be influenced by all industrial work, not only mining) linked to simple presence in space. What would add to the index is being in space, not cloaked, not in a POS and not warping, doing whatever you want. Real and simple occupancy.
Let slip the trolls of forums.
|
Captain H4rlock
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 16:31:44 -
[3769] - Quote
how about not all but only the "boarder systems" are vunrable for each alliance and not 10 nodes but more like 5
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10151
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 16:37:26 -
[3770] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I was able to earn 108m an hour in Cobalt Edge with a carrier and oracle on grid Wow, 108 mil per hour (54 mil per hour per toon). Nice. In high sec you can use a Mach and make 86 mil per hour doing lvl 3 missions while being protected by CONCORD. So for the cost of using TWO characters and a CAPITAL SHIP that takes months to train for, and while flying in space where the space police won't help you, you get a whopping, mind blowing 22 million isk extra per hour total. Thanks for helping us empirically demonstrate the imbalances we were discussing, imbalances that end up distorting everything ccp tries to do with null sec. Level 3's, as you once said to me which was not moderated but my reply was so it must be OK, "Keep taking your meds!" Is it you who keeps reporting my posts, bit sad if it is, I bet you report this one too as off topic so your off topic one gets left with no reply, its about your level isn't it! As for your points on this CCP know what income levels are, see what Fozzie's said on income about null sec revenue, so keep beating your drum on level 4's it is not listened to.
That's funny that you talk about taking my meds then go off on a spiel that would suggest one needs to take some meds.
I've never once reported one of your posts, why would I your not important enough to warrant more than a post reply. That you think you are that important (and that you view post reporting as a weapon) says volumes .
And I heard what Fozzie said about income levels. I don't know why is so hard for some people (whether they work for ccp of just play the game) to understand the issue involved and separate general isk generation from individual wealth generation balance. It's like that in real life, I live in a country with a $20 trillion economy, doesn't mean I personally have $20 trillion lol.
The fact that a bunch of people use null as semi-passive isktar 50-60 mil isk per hour fun land says nothing about the incentives to LIVE there. That it takes you a CAPITAL SHIP and TWO TOONS to make LESS than an incursion runner should tell you there is a problem. If you were interested in the truth of the matter (a truth you yourself demonstrated) we wouldn't be having this discussion.
|
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
318
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 17:09:53 -
[3771] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:CCP, can you please address the point to living in null sec? I mean my logic is that because there is more risk to living in null sec there should be more reward, but as it stands this is not the case. Do you have any plans to address the gaping goatse-sized hole in the risk vs. reward proprotion of nullsec vs say high sec?
Thanks.
Yours in christ,
Aryndel Vyst Director of Personnel Operations and Logistics Goonswarm Federation
Of course not. I mean why make nullsec space actually worth living in BEFORE you make it a pain in the ass to defend? Putting the cart before the horse is CCP standard deployment methodology. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6602
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 17:58:00 -
[3772] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Aryndel Vyst wrote:CCP, can you please address the point to living in null sec? I mean my logic is that because there is more risk to living in null sec there should be more reward, but as it stands this is not the case. Do you have any plans to address the gaping goatse-sized hole in the risk vs. reward proprotion of nullsec vs say high sec?
Thanks.
Yours in christ,
Aryndel Vyst Director of Personnel Operations and Logistics Goonswarm Federation Of course not. I mean why make nullsec space actually worth living in BEFORE you make it a pain in the ass to defend? Putting the cart before the horse is CCP standard deployment methodology. Burn it all down before you rebuild.
Basically first, all the opposing 0.0 dreams must be cleared away, then CCP's 0.0 vision will have room for construction
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 18:19:50 -
[3773] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I was able to earn 108m an hour in Cobalt Edge with a carrier and oracle on grid Wow, 108 mil per hour (54 mil per hour per toon). Nice. In high sec you can use a Mach and make 86 mil per hour doing lvl 3 missions while being protected by CONCORD. So for the cost of using TWO characters and a CAPITAL SHIP that takes months to train for, and while flying in space where the space police won't help you, you get a whopping, mind blowing 22 million isk extra per hour total. Thanks for helping us empirically demonstrate the imbalances we were discussing, imbalances that end up distorting everything ccp tries to do with null sec. Level 3's, as you once said to me which was not moderated but my reply was so it must be OK, "Keep taking your meds!" Is it you who keeps reporting my posts, bit sad if it is, I bet you report this one too as off topic so your off topic one gets left with no reply, its about your level isn't it! As for your points on this CCP know what income levels are, see what Fozzie's said on income about null sec revenue, so keep beating your drum on level 4's it is not listened to. That's funny that you talk about taking my meds then go off on a spiel that would suggest one needs to take some meds. I've never once reported one of your posts, why would I your not important enough to warrant more than a post reply. That you think you are that important (and that you view post reporting as a weapon) says volumes . And I heard what Fozzie said about income levels. I don't know why is so hard for some people (whether they work for ccp of just play the game) to understand the issue involved and separate general isk generation from individual wealth generation balance. It's like that in real life, I live in a country with a $20 trillion economy, doesn't mean I personally have $20 trillion lol. The fact that a bunch of people use null as semi-passive isktar 50-60 mil isk per hour fun land says nothing about the incentives to LIVE there. That it takes you a CAPITAL SHIP and TWO TOONS to make LESS than an incursion runner should tell you there is a problem. If you were interested in the truth of the matter (a truth you yourself demonstrated) we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Well we had a debate once before and you resorted to asking me about meds, which is kinda meh, I am just reminding you about it. However I am getting my posts reported and as it was one you strongly disagree with I assumed it was you, so if it was not you then I apologise.
In France which is where I live, the government gives money to people for various different reasons and then taxes that overall income. If you look at the Goons the moon goo is used to supply line members with replacement ships, to get them into some ships they even set it up so the Goon grunt can make ISK. Other alliances without moon income could not really do an SRP apart from say logi. As such it counts within the benefits and losses of the pilot.
Actually a semi-afk passive Ishtar running anoms in highly protected space is little different to running a level 4 in Inaya, just check how many missions runners have been killed there recently and you cannot really run missions efficiently afk or while in a CTA fleet.
Incursions are different to level 4's, carrier ratting in null space is the main way for grunts to make ISK and are comparable to missions as being the bread and butter of incomes. I made a lot more from anoms because it was a lot less hassle. At one point in Osmon I was doing level 4's in a navy scorp which was faction fit and the number of times I had to evade ganks made it not worthwhile. I went to an easier mission hub which was not as good for LP's, yet people tell me hisec is safe, that was 15m to 30m.
I don't dispurt you mission figures, you are obviously a very good PvE players, you blitz and fit efficiently, not everyone does as you do, hell now I run level 4's in Osmon with two T2 fitted Paladins, though have not been doing them recently, been shooting gankers for fun.
But still apart from our disagreement on comparing hisec to 0.0, I do believe that income in lower level truesec systems needs to be higher for the increased risk and more to do with fairly recent changes in game which I detailed in my last post which was removed by the mod. So you feel this and I feel this, so can we leave the comparison between hisec out of this because for many of us we much prerfer to be in 0.0 rather than hisec.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
454
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 18:24:44 -
[3774] - Quote
This question is for CCP Fozzie and Team 5 O:
I want to raise a concern I have concerning current TCU mechanics that may be used to circumvent the underlying intention of the proposed new sov system and in particular with regards to the of use of the entosis module on TCUs:
The Rise of the TrollPOS
From Evelopedia:
Quote:Anchoring: Must be anchored within 300AU of a systems sun; but must not be within 50km of a starbase's control tower.
What is to stop a defending alliance from anchoring the TCU near a Deathstar or a Dickstar POS to provide AFK sov defence for a given system?
Are there any plans to change the requirements for TCU placement such that they can only be placed (or moved for existing TCUs) to an unoccupied moon? |
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 18:47:43 -
[3775] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:This question is for CCP Fozzie and Team 5 O: I want to raise a concern I have concerning current TCU mechanics that may be used to circumvent the underlying intention of the proposed new sov system and in particular with regards to the of use of the entosis module on TCUs: The Rise of the TrollPOSFrom Evelopedia: Quote:Anchoring: Must be anchored within 300AU of a systems sun; but must not be within 50km of a starbase's control tower. What is to stop a defending alliance from anchoring the TCU near a Deathstar or a Dickstar POS to provide AFK sov defence for a given system? Are there any plans to change the requirements for TCU placement such that they can only be placed (or moved for existing TCUs) to an unoccupied moon?
Nothing, but the TCU will only be for putting your name on the map, nothing else. |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1501
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 18:51:18 -
[3776] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:Nothing, but the TCU will only be for putting your name on the map, nothing else.
Well, the 25% fuel savings will be a nice bennie for the trollpos.
Nyphur's proposal sounds interesting, except for the bit where it requires a capital ship to contest sov.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 19:32:14 -
[3777] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: No sorry but your wrong - The ONLY problem with sov as it is today is the fact Sheer numbers will always win. This isn't changing under the new proposals, in fact it is going to make it easier for sheer numbers to win.
This is being magnified under the new sov proposal by becoming "he who can field the most in a 4 hour period wins".
I'm curious, How do you think these changes will affect the the big coalitions? I agree having 2 or 3 mega groups holding all the prime sov and bleeding everyone else out of nul is not good but these changes do little to change this. Holding sov you don't use is a privilege of the rich and stupid. All they will do is drop sov in all the crappy systems they never use and because they have overwhelming numbers and a coalition to back them up, won't lose any system they want to keep.
I'm glad you have conviction in your opinions, but at this point neither one of us is "wrong" because neither one of us knows what's going to happen. We have a difference of opinion.
When you think tactically, about a single grid, or even a single constellation, you are right. He who can bring the biggest numbers will win tactically. Strategically, owning a sprawling empire might become a major pain in the butt if it's being attacked on many fronts at once. The pain will be compounded if part of your sprawling empire is occupied by renters whose only answer to an attacker is to safe up and wait for them to go away. You'll have to actively defend those renters now, or lose them.
If, and it is a big if, lots of people start attacking the big power blocs from many directions now that you don't have to have a super-cap blob to do it, it's going to put them under a lot of pressure, they're going to burn out, and crack. It's a pattern we've seen in Eve again and again. Being under sustained attack is a "life on hold" event that no entity in the game has been able to sustain for long.
Tactically, you can say that there is nobody who can compete with the big power blocs in a straight up, one off, fight, and you're correct. Strategically, they won't be able to hold onto their sprawling empires forever if they are constantly having to defend them from attack by many smaller entities simultaneously. Will that happen? Nobody really knows. It will depend on how much pent up appetite there is to see the "blue donut" explode.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6602
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 19:52:42 -
[3778] - Quote
massadeath of moa has committed to ending our 0.0 nightmare
just as with fatigue, an unbeatable weapon that will bring him victory
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Freedom Nadd
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 19:57:10 -
[3779] - Quote
How to fix Nullsec, the 15 point plan.
1. Reduce Highsec incursion spawns to 2.
2. Increase Sansha HP in incursions by 50%.
3. Reduce income curve for HQ's to 20 million at 50 ships.
4. Increase Level 4 mission standing requirement to 7.0, Increase Level 5 mission requirement to 9.0.
5. Add dynamic rat spawning to Level 3 and higher missions, increase mission rat numbers depending on number of ships in fleet (1 ship - normal spawn, 2 ships +75% spawns, 3 ships +200% spawns, 4 ships +350% spawns).
6. Remove State standings for mission agents.
7. Increase high sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 8 hours. Increase low sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 6 hours.
8. Remove any ore above Scordite from high sec.
9. Allow Rorqual class ships in High sec.
10. Remove ALL usable ore from starter systems and 1.0 space.
11. Increase NPC Corp tax to 20%.
12. Increase high sec manufacturing tax by 25%.
13. Decrease high sec refine rate by 25% and increase refine tax by 10%.
14. Remove all exploration combat sites from high sec.
15. Reduce high sec exploration sites by 50%.
Of course, will never happen. |
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 19:58:58 -
[3780] - Quote
I love the spirit of thise changes especially with giving significance to constellations. However, as I imagine the flow of people taking part in the activities, I believe the reality will just feel like the system is convoluted.
- Attackers are uncontested? They can take the constellation easily. - Attackers are challenged by defenders? Defenders WILL stop them at constellation chokepoints, battle will ensue until the stronger fleet wins.
In either case, the battle for the constellation isn't really dependant on Entosis links; the Entosis links are just the mechanic handed by CCP to make the things happen.
IDEA: Sov Structures still have hitpoints to shoot through, must be destroyed to capture territory, and most importantly the amount of hit points those structures have is scaled according to the owner's activity level in that system and/or constellation (recalculated during DT) ... SO, unused space is hard to hold, used space is easy to hold, and if alliances want to hold large areas of space (buffer zones?) then they have to actually invest and risk a lot to fortify those isolated chokepoints.
I really like the idea of doing something where constellations matter, but the entosis links and capture events look like a complicated gimmick... ^^;
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
|
Maralek
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:31:37 -
[3781] - Quote
i am completely underwhelmed annoyed the game i once new and loved is slowy being dismantled and ruined |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:42:21 -
[3782] - Quote
Maralek wrote:i am completely underwhelmed and annoyed ,the game i once new and loved is slowy being dismantled and ruined, B-R made the news. A couple of cruisers fighting over a stick in the back end of nowhere wont. CCP must hate us Maybe after people like us are gone eve can truly reach it's golden age.
Factional Sovereignty, plexes and all.
Fweddit will turn into the next cfc and we'll become their pets.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Seven Koskanaiken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1440
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:52:03 -
[3783] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:This question is for CCP Fozzie and Team 5 O: I want to raise a concern I have concerning current TCU mechanics that may be used to circumvent the underlying intention of the proposed new sov system and in particular with regards to the of use of the entosis module on TCUs: The Rise of the TrollPOSFrom Evelopedia: Quote:Anchoring: Must be anchored within 300AU of a systems sun; but must not be within 50km of a starbase's control tower. What is to stop a defending alliance from anchoring the TCU near a Deathstar or a Dickstar POS to provide AFK sov defence for a given system? Are there any plans to change the requirements for TCU placement such that they can only be placed (or moved for existing TCUs) to an unoccupied moon?
Ooh sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. |
Freedom Nadd
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:54:51 -
[3784] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Maralek wrote:i am completely underwhelmed and annoyed ,the game i once new and loved is slowy being dismantled and ruined, B-R made the news. A couple of cruisers fighting over a stick in the back end of nowhere wont. CCP must hate us Maybe after people like us are gone eve can truly reach it's golden age. Factional Sovereignty, plexes and all. Fweddit will turn into the next cfc and we'll become their pets.
Just get the CFC to drop all its sov, and become nomadic leet - Peeveepee Trolceptors coalition.
Roam across all of nullsec, multiple thousands of interceptors flipping all of nullsec sov on a daily basis.
The tears would be glorious. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
279
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:55:29 -
[3785] - Quote
BL. In Venal. Three goon regions around us. This is gonna be good.
Need Moar Buckitz. |
NoTalent
Are we sitting comfortably The Fearless Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 22:00:59 -
[3786] - Quote
I haven't read all 187 pages of comments, so if this has been suggested then fair enough: why not make the entosis module a one time use only module. Once it has been fired, it can't be used again.
I would also make it unfittable from a mobile depot or any ship, It has to be fitted in a station. If a fleet of ceptors want to go troll sov owners as you put it, they'll have to work a bit harder at it.
|
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
380
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 22:05:27 -
[3787] - Quote
NoTalent wrote:I haven't read all 187 pages of comments, so if this has been suggested then fair enough: why not make the entosis module a one time use only module. Once it has been fired, it can't be used again.
I would also make it unfittable from a mobile depot or any ship, It has to be fitted in a station. If a fleet of ceptors want to go troll sov owners as you put it, they'll have to work a bit harder at it.
I kind of like this. It would restrict the meta of fleet doctrines that would be viable, since persistent hit-an-run harassment with long range fleets would be difficult, but the restriction might be fairly small, I hope. |
Josef Djugashvilis
2913
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 22:10:12 -
[3788] - Quote
Post deleted, why make fun of Dear Jenny yet again...
This is not a signature.
|
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
202
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 22:27:17 -
[3789] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Would you guys all please unsub now and get it over with so CCP can move forward and away from "Sov Rent Online"? If you would have provided content instead of "blue donut online" none of this would have happened. Your bad I guess.
I don't get the hate. I really don't.
Faction warfare takes care of its participants just fine - so fine in fact that it attracts farmers from all parts of space, because the ISK is honestly so much better and the entry barrier so low. Honestly, FW people are pampered; they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from FW. Compare that to Sov as it is imagined now; barring any interesting Ihub upgrades they have planned, it's all work and no reward.
Some people want Sov to mean something, and some people want to fly something larger than a frigate in an MMO, you know, where you progress over time? Some people also want content that is dynamic, not the pre-packaged, fast-food content that FW represents. This will literally never happen so long as the rewards of Sov are so terrible compared to the now large amount of effort it may take to hold.
A nascent alliance or corp, as it is now, has no motivation to try and take space. They are literally better going to FW space or WH space. Ideally there would be no 'better', as each space should give interesting pluses and minuses.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
365
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 22:38:31 -
[3790] - Quote
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:Ugly Eric wrote:So much hate towards CCP. People crying of Fozzie nerfing everything. Yet they fail to see how much more balanced things are now than they were before. "ability to use t1 cruisers were nerfed to oblivion by jump fatigue" Honestly I find claims like that hilarious. T1 cruisers can use gates you know.
You people need to chill out. The proposed sov changes may not create the best ideal sov mechanics, but atleast it will be way better than it is now. Most of players ideas on this thread are outright useless. Though out by narrow minded ppl wanting only to buff their own way of sov living.
I agree that the proposed changes may not be the ideal situation for my way of living, but atleast it stirs the nest. If I would have it my way, it would penaltize ppl of having more sove than they can use. It would nerf lsec FW and hsec incursion incomes so much, that 0.0 would be the only feasable way of keeping your accounts plexed. The occupancy model would include pvp as it's main meter and most important meter. It would let us destroy player built stations. It would make it possible to claim lsec to nullsec and hsec to lsec (and vice versa). It would nerf the living **** out of passive alliance level income and make all income individual level. It would let the supercapitals to be docked. It would introduce more endgame content. It would give older players the edge on on their skillpoints to some usage. But hey. I cant have it my way. I have only the CCP way to play this game with. And yet I keep playing. As are all of you whiney faglets too. And most of you keep doing so. As will I.
Adapt or die. Been the keyphrase in eve for as long as this game has excisted. I hope to damn it will keep doing so. I love you Eric. Eric4CSMXI I fear for the future of eve..
Like how Eric manages to change wording to suit his own need.
Is a little naive if he believes this change does not exactly suit Tri's "previous" way of living and playing in nulsec. Adapt or die, is very apt here, look at the sov map and ask yourself - who is the best looking target ATM, a 15,000 man alliance or a 700 man alliance?
A little whiner - "I can only play how ccp let me" - yet is criticizing others for saying they don't like this change and would like to see it made better. Poking fun at those who would push for a better sov system for all.
And being narrow minded enough to want to nerf the rest of eve to suit him , well, nough said.
Eric 4CSMX1 - NEVER
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:26:01 -
[3791] - Quote
Freedom Nadd wrote:How to fix Nullsec, the 15 point plan.
1. Reduce Highsec incursion spawns to 2.
2. Increase Sansha HP in incursions by 50%.
3. Reduce income curve for HQ's to 20 million at 50 ships.
4. Increase Level 4 mission standing requirement to 7.0, Increase Level 5 mission requirement to 9.0.
5. Add dynamic rat spawning to Level 3 and higher missions, increase mission rat numbers depending on number of ships in fleet (1 ship - normal spawn, 2 ships +75% spawns, 3 ships +200% spawns, 4 ships +350% spawns).
6. Remove State standings for mission agents.
7. Increase high sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 8 hours. Increase low sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 6 hours.
8. Remove any ore above Scordite from high sec.
9. Allow Rorqual class ships in High sec.
10. Remove ALL usable ore from starter systems and 1.0 space.
11. Increase NPC Corp tax to 20%.
12. Increase high sec manufacturing tax by 25%.
13. Decrease high sec refine rate by 25% and increase refine tax by 10%.
14. Remove all exploration combat sites from high sec.
15. Reduce high sec exploration sites by 50%.
Of course, will never happen.
GOOD that it wont |
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:40:51 -
[3792] - Quote
Freedom Nadd wrote:How to fix Nullsec, the 15 point plan.
1. Reduce Highsec incursion spawns to 2.
2. Increase Sansha HP in incursions by 50%.
3. Reduce income curve for HQ's to 20 million at 50 ships.
4. Increase Level 4 mission standing requirement to 7.0, Increase Level 5 mission requirement to 9.0.
5. Add dynamic rat spawning to Level 3 and higher missions, increase mission rat numbers depending on number of ships in fleet (1 ship - normal spawn, 2 ships +75% spawns, 3 ships +200% spawns, 4 ships +350% spawns).
6. Remove State standings for mission agents.
7. Increase high sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 8 hours. Increase low sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 6 hours.
8. Remove any ore above Scordite from high sec.
9. Allow Rorqual class ships in High sec.
10. Remove ALL usable ore from starter systems and 1.0 space.
11. Increase NPC Corp tax to 20%.
12. Increase high sec manufacturing tax by 25%.
13. Decrease high sec refine rate by 25% and increase refine tax by 10%.
14. Remove all exploration combat sites from high sec.
15. Reduce high sec exploration sites by 50%.
Of course, will never happen.
While some of those are indeed good overall things to do, you still need a reason to want Sov over the alternatives. For example, there are lots of big, scary low sec alliances that source their line income either from L5s or FW, and would have the power to take sov if they wanted it under the new system. Key word is, as always, if they wanted to. Simply put, they would be foolish to take on that liability when they can secure a better life and better income where they currently are.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:45:23 -
[3793] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Would you guys all please unsub now and get it over with so CCP can move forward and away from "Sov Rent Online"? If you would have provided content instead of "blue donut online" none of this would have happened. Your bad I guess. I don't get the hate. I really don't. Faction warfare takes care of its participants just fine - so fine in fact that it attracts farmers from all parts of space, because the ISK is honestly so much better and the entry barrier so low. Honestly, FW people are pampered; they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from FW. Compare that to Sov as it is imagined now; barring any interesting Ihub upgrades they have planned, it's all work and no reward. Some people want Sov to mean something, and some people want to fly something larger than a frigate in an MMO, you know, where you progress over time? Some people also want content that is dynamic, not the pre-packaged, fast-food content that FW represents. This will literally never happen so long as the rewards of Sov are so terrible compared to the now large amount of effort it may take to hold. A nascent alliance or corp, as it is now, has no motivation to try and take space. They are literally better going to FW space or WH space. Ideally there would be no 'better', as each space should give interesting pluses and minuses. This may be eve but I still wouldn't recommend trying to go about learning how to hate in eve.
But if you want to, then it probably isn't too hard.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
7915
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:51:10 -
[3794] - Quote
Freedom Nadd wrote:How to fix Nullsec, the 15 point plan.
1. Reduce Highsec incursion spawns to 2.
2. Increase Sansha HP in incursions by 50%.
3. Reduce income curve for HQ's to 20 million at 50 ships.
4. Increase Level 4 mission standing requirement to 7.0, Increase Level 5 mission requirement to 9.0.
5. Add dynamic rat spawning to Level 3 and higher missions, increase mission rat numbers depending on number of ships in fleet (1 ship - normal spawn, 2 ships +75% spawns, 3 ships +200% spawns, 4 ships +350% spawns).
6. Remove State standings for mission agents.
7. Increase high sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 8 hours. Increase low sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 6 hours.
8. Remove any ore above Scordite from high sec.
9. Allow Rorqual class ships in High sec.
10. Remove ALL usable ore from starter systems and 1.0 space.
11. Increase NPC Corp tax to 20%.
12. Increase high sec manufacturing tax by 25%.
13. Decrease high sec refine rate by 25% and increase refine tax by 10%.
14. Remove all exploration combat sites from high sec.
15. Reduce high sec exploration sites by 50%.
Of course, will never happen.
Nerfing high sec to fix null.
Well, isn't that a new and original idea that's not in the least bit stupid. Oh wait...
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Julii Hex
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:51:51 -
[3795] - Quote
Man I was really hoping this game would go in the direction of world of warcraft so it would be easier on people but these new changes are going to make life in nulsec extremely active, crazy and difficult. People in large alliances are no longer going to feel so safe in their large swaths of nulsec space. Looks like talent will finally trump size. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6605
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:36:12 -
[3796] - Quote
Julii Hex wrote:Man I was really hoping this game would go in the direction of world of warcraft so it would be easier on people but these new changes are going to make life in nulsec extremely active, crazy and difficult. People in large alliances are no longer going to feel so safe in their large swaths of nulsec space. Looks like talent will finally trump size. Heh heh heh....
That's the spirit... I think massadeath might welcome this optimism into moa
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
493
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:40:07 -
[3797] - Quote
How to fix Null:
1) Disband CFC 2) ???? 3) Profit
amirite? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6605
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:43:20 -
[3798] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:How to fix Null:
1) Disband CFC 2) ???? 3) Profit
amirite? How can CCP or moa disband the cfc, it makes no sense as our security is a bit better than that.
Rather, it should read: 0: End the CFC's 0.0 Dream 1: Watch CFC perish
then you can continue to step 2
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Jenna Frey
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:43:21 -
[3799] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:How to fix Null:
1) Disband CFC 2) ???? 3) Profit
amirite?
You sir are an absolute genius. You can quote me on that. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1458
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:54:49 -
[3800] - Quote
Freedom Nadd wrote:How to fix Nullsec, the 15 point plan.
1. Reduce Highsec incursion spawns to 2.
2. Increase Sansha HP in incursions by 50%.
3. Reduce income curve for HQ's to 20 million at 50 ships.
4. Increase Level 4 mission standing requirement to 7.0, Increase Level 5 mission requirement to 9.0.
5. Add dynamic rat spawning to Level 3 and higher missions, increase mission rat numbers depending on number of ships in fleet (1 ship - normal spawn, 2 ships +75% spawns, 3 ships +200% spawns, 4 ships +350% spawns).
6. Remove State standings for mission agents.
7. Increase high sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 8 hours. Increase low sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 6 hours.
8. Remove any ore above Scordite from high sec.
9. Allow Rorqual class ships in High sec.
10. Remove ALL usable ore from starter systems and 1.0 space.
11. Increase NPC Corp tax to 20%.
12. Increase high sec manufacturing tax by 25%.
13. Decrease high sec refine rate by 25% and increase refine tax by 10%.
14. Remove all exploration combat sites from high sec.
15. Reduce high sec exploration sites by 50%.
Of course, will never happen. These are fair, reasoned changes.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
301
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:58:37 -
[3801] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I was able to earn 108m an hour in Cobalt Edge with a carrier and oracle on grid Wow, 108 mil per hour (54 mil per hour per toon). Nice. In high sec you can use a Mach and make 86 mil per hour doing lvl 3 missions while being protected by CONCORD. So for the cost of using TWO characters and a CAPITAL SHIP that takes months to train for, and while flying in space where the space police won't help you, you get a whopping, mind blowing 22 million isk extra per hour total. Thanks for helping us empirically demonstrate the imbalances we were discussing, imbalances that end up distorting everything ccp tries to do with null sec. Jeez Jenn, let it go man. CCP ain't listening to you.
Jenn makes a point by presenting actual figures and math that can be substantiated. So far, you have brought nothing to the ongoing discussion besides "CCP SAYS SO".
Unless you have a serious intention of starting a new religion with various CCP developers who misread statistics as deities, you are trolling and you will get laughed at.
Meanwhile Jenn and other people who can provide figures and solid arguments can and will continue posting. If you are serious about the religion thing, this is not the place. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
494
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 01:10:00 -
[3802] - Quote
But... but... guize.... null makes more isk per hour than any area in the game, we need to nerf it
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1502
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 01:13:48 -
[3803] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote: While some of those are indeed good overall things to do, you still need a reason to want Sov over the alternatives. For example, there are lots of big, scary low sec alliances that source their line income either from L5s or FW, and would have the power to take sov if they wanted it under the new system. Key word is, as always, if they wanted to. Simply put, they would be foolish to take on that liability when they can secure a better life and better income where they currently are.
You think that if other parts of space were nerfed silly, people would feed themselves to the big null power blocs instead of just quitting a crap game. That's adorable.
What is "a better life?" What if "a better income" is not as important a variable to some players as it is to you? (More to the point, what if the means necessary to get "a better income" looked like far too much effort to bother with? I'm looking at high sec missions, mostly, but I've been bored silly orbiting buttons, too.) What if people stay in low sec, or high sec, or wormholes, because it suits them better? What if null sec is not the place that you "graduate" to, it's just a play option with a particular flavor?
The simple fact is that if the safe, consistent accumulation of ISK is that important to you, then maybe high sec is where you should be. Leave the risky parts of space for people who enjoy risk. And be sure to post when your oh-so-super-safe bear-mobile is ganked in Osmon.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
299
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 01:14:18 -
[3804] - Quote
Querns wrote:Freedom Nadd wrote:How to fix Nullsec, the 15 point plan.
1. Reduce Highsec incursion spawns to 2.
2. Increase Sansha HP in incursions by 50%.
3. Reduce income curve for HQ's to 20 million at 50 ships.
4. Increase Level 4 mission standing requirement to 7.0, Increase Level 5 mission requirement to 9.0.
5. Add dynamic rat spawning to Level 3 and higher missions, increase mission rat numbers depending on number of ships in fleet (1 ship - normal spawn, 2 ships +75% spawns, 3 ships +200% spawns, 4 ships +350% spawns).
6. Remove State standings for mission agents.
7. Increase high sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 8 hours. Increase low sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 6 hours.
8. Remove any ore above Scordite from high sec.
9. Allow Rorqual class ships in High sec.
10. Remove ALL usable ore from starter systems and 1.0 space.
11. Increase NPC Corp tax to 20%.
12. Increase high sec manufacturing tax by 25%.
13. Decrease high sec refine rate by 25% and increase refine tax by 10%.
14. Remove all exploration combat sites from high sec.
15. Reduce high sec exploration sites by 50%.
Of course, will never happen. These are fair, reasoned changes. I can see new subscriptions soaring under these conditions............Oh wait.
......................................................
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1458
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 01:35:40 -
[3805] - Quote
Xpaulusx wrote:I can see new subscriptions soaring under these conditions............Oh wait. Confirming that new players subscribe to run L4 missions and highsec incursions.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 01:43:42 -
[3806] - Quote
Querns wrote:Xpaulusx wrote:I can see new subscriptions soaring under these conditions............Oh wait. Confirming that new players subscribe to run L4 missions and highsec incursions.
Clearly that is shown in CCP's reports because This Is Eve had tons of coverage on highsec anything, because it's so exciting!
See! Numbers went up! I can read graphs! |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6609
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 01:48:23 -
[3807] - Quote
But you make graphs... or is that like a state secret
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
357
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:02:04 -
[3808] - Quote
Not gonna try and make out that highsec doesn't have some serious isk issues (too much!) but taking an optimal blitzing mission runners setup and saying look how much all of these guys are making is a load of ball I'm afraid.
- Most highsec mission runners don't blitz and most don't run for the faction offering the optimal isk/LP conversion and on that note SoE LP conversion is tanking and has been since the new ships were released last year. Once too many people jump on the isk train for a single type of LP, it devalues. Feel free to check out the downward trends on pretty much all the items from their store (probes and launchers, virtue implants and faction ships). If everyone was running optimal setups for SoE LP then it would have bottomed out ages ago and we'd be looking at minimal LP returns. Fair enough it is currently at 2k/LP so no-one can whine, but it won't be for long.
- You're comparing afk drone boats against someone flying a machariel at pretty much perfect efficiency for a spreadsheet scoreboard - it's apples and oranges.
- Sorry but moongoo. I know it's not a personal income but it's a net profit for that individual if they don't have to expend on pvp ships because of SRP paid for passively by moon goo.
I do still think highsec earns far too much for the risk involved but I just wanted to point out some *serious* issues with your methods of comparison. |
Mark Messier
Universal Mining And Manufactoring
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:08:50 -
[3809] - Quote
Literally Space Moses wrote:You made sov harder to hold (good) but didn't give any additional incentive to actually hold it (very bad),
Seriously, you keep giving nullsec the stick, when is the carrot going to come?
Forget the carrot! all you health nut jobs can keep your carrot!
I want the CAKE!!!!!mmmmCAKE!!!
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
183
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:15:37 -
[3810] - Quote
Querns wrote:Xpaulusx wrote:I can see new subscriptions soaring under these conditions............Oh wait. Confirming that new players subscribe to run L4 missions and highsec incursions.
but but but.. ccp is removing missions since they said to someone who said to another but but but...oh wait
fozzie should nerf incursion income fozzie should nerf missions........oh wait he did fozzie should nerf research agents........oh wait he did fozzie should nerf himself.................i'll wait. |
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
496
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:18:38 -
[3811] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Not gonna try and make out that highsec doesn't have some serious isk issues (too much!) but taking an optimal blitzing mission runners setup and saying look how much all of these guys are making is a load of ball I'm afraid. - Most highsec mission runners don't blitz and most don't run for the faction offering the optimal isk/LP conversion and on that note SoE LP conversion is tanking and has been since the new ships were released last year. Once too many people jump on the isk train for a single type of LP, it devalues. Feel free to check out the downward trends on pretty much all the items from their store (probes and launchers, virtue implants and faction ships). If everyone was running optimal setups for SoE LP then it would have bottomed out ages ago and we'd be looking at minimal LP returns. Fair enough it is currently at 2k/LP so no-one can whine, but it won't be for long.
- You're comparing afk drone boats against someone flying a machariel at pretty much perfect efficiency for a spreadsheet scoreboard - it's apples and oranges.
- Sorry but moongoo. I know it's not a personal income but it's a net profit for that individual if they don't have to expend on pvp ships because of SRP paid for passively by moon goo.
I do still think highsec earns far too much for the risk involved but I just wanted to point out some *serious* issues with your methods of comparison.
I don't generally disagree with any of the points you are making.
However, I would add these considerations: - if anyone ever actually afk rats in deklein, they're guaranteed to get killed by the people that roam through that space- just ask Gevlon. Each ship lost is 300+mil to replace. -I do not disagree that the ability to use drones and not have to click anything is good for the game. HOWEVER, realize that active ratting is not a significantly higher reward than doing the drone version. The point with those specific comparisons is to show that doing active activities elsewhere is wildly more profitable than in null -Not blitzing and not running for optimal isk/lp is effectively the same justification as using drones to rat in null. Less wealth per hour for less effort or concentration. Except the risk of getting your ratting ship killed in highsec is near zero provided that you are not running some wild officer fit. -Moongoo is basically the only current justification for entities to actually live in null. If there was no moon goo or if it was changed to another format at this point, why would we ever realistically operate out of null as a corporation or an alliance. Wormhole space would be significantly more profitable for everyone if moongoo was changed. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
357
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:26:02 -
[3812] - Quote
Yeah I think the conclusion is fine, just the working on the way isn't fully justified.
And ofc afk in hostile space means watching something on another screen with local visible :) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6610
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:34:30 -
[3813] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Wormhole space would be significantly more profitable for everyone if moongoo was changed. But wait, like how Marmite would end us if we lived in highsec,
the wormhole people will end us if we try to live in wormhole. our wormhole dream will be ended nearly instantly, even without anything like sov lasers
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
204
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:34:53 -
[3814] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote: You think that if other parts of space were nerfed silly, people would feed themselves to the big null power blocs instead of just quitting a crap game. That's adorable.
What is "a better life?" What if "a better income" is not as important a variable to some players as it is to you? (More to the point, what if the means necessary to get "a better income" looked like far too much effort to bother with? I'm looking at high sec missions, mostly, but I've been bored silly orbiting buttons, too.) What if people stay in low sec, or high sec, or wormholes, because it suits them better? What if null sec is not the place that you "graduate" to, it's just a play option with a particular flavor?
The simple fact is that if the safe, consistent accumulation of ISK is that important to you, then maybe high sec is where you should be. Leave the risky parts of space for people who enjoy risk. And be sure to post when your oh-so-super-safe bear-mobile is ganked in Osmon.
All I want is risk to be correlated to reward. If you have fun in a certain area of space, then by all means play there and have as much fun as you want. You could either nerf the entire rest of the game, or you could just buff null into viability - I'd be happy with either so long as null became viable.
I don't think null should be the place to graduate to, there shouldn't be any sort of linear progression of space types, nor should any one particular area of space be purposed for any one activity. However, each space type should be able to support its residents at a level which coincides with the risk and effort involved.
They don't right now, and these changes look to be tilting it even worse.
I assure you most of my ISK ends up as lossmails.
High Sec being a safe ISK fountain asphyxiates local ISK production and content outside of Hi Sec, which makes for a very dull game. Living in null should keep your hangar stocked for null activities; its silly that Hi Sec Incursions or FW could do it better.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
301
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:37:34 -
[3815] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Most highsec mission runners don't blitz and most don't run for the faction offering the optimal isk/LP conversion
Can we see some numbers backing up your claim? If the frequency of shifts between LP conversion rates show us anything, it's that people actually tend to blitz those. (And of course there are widely known guides that cover every mission out there and emphasize blitzing) It seems to me that you are making a subjective claim here without any data to back it up. Some call this bullshipping.
Eli Apol wrote:Once too many people jump on the isk train for a single type of LP, it devalues. Feel free to check out the downward trends on pretty much all the items from their store (probes and launchers, virtue implants and faction ships). If everyone was running optimal setups for SoE LP then it would have bottomed out ages ago and we'd be looking at minimal LP returns. Fair enough it is currently at 2k/LP so no-one can whine, but it won't be for long.
Factually, rushing one faction LP ends up devaluing it, given that the demand for goods obtainable through the associated LP store is nominally stable. Player reaction to this is simply doing missions for another faction.
SoE LP store, on the other hand, has certain items that are always in high and continuous demand. This is one of the reasons why SoE LP was already more valuable over the others. The release of SoE ships further increased the demand, thus, making SoE LP even more valuable than it was before the SoE ship release.
Therefore the point you mentioned is invalid, and the example you used is attached to your faulty point out of the circumstances that allow it to be. Highsec pilots are easily able to adjust for any LP value fluctuation, which has nothing to do at all with your non-factual belief that null individual income is plentiful.
Eli Apol wrote:You're comparing afk drone boats against someone flying a machariel at pretty much perfect efficiency for a spreadsheet scoreboard - it's apples and oranges.
It isn't, drone boats can be used for good effect in empire mission running too. Besides, one can even try and fly a Machariel in null-sec anoms, the end result in hourly individual income only changes by 15-20m over the established ~50m ISK figure. That is still extremely miniscule compared with 90-100m ISK/hr empire mission running income, 300+ m ISK/hr FW L4 running income and 150+ m ISK/hr highsec incursion income.
As the math and figures lay it out, the apple and oranges claim you are making is unfounded. And even if it wasn't, it wouldn't have change the fact that how null individual income is extremely poor not just against lowsec FW, but even several highsec activities.
Eli Apol wrote:Sorry but moongoo. I know it's not a personal income but it's a net profit for that individual if they don't have to expend on pvp ships because of SRP paid for passively by moon goo.
Sorry, but you are still wrong. You have already been told by actual null-sec players with allegiances to varied and even opposing factions that the moon income has been drastically nerfed quite some time ago. SRP budgets are largely provided through the taxation of individuals. Moon goo isn't what it used to be 3-4 years ago. One can simply make very good predictions of alliance and coalition member sizes with comparisons between income from moons and monthly alliance/coalition loss totals. The inevitable conclusion is always that the moon goo is very far from accounting for SRP budgets alone.
Now that it has been proven again that you are not providing this discussion with anything of substance (just wild speculation and poorly crafted rhetoric), perhaps you should consider continuing your salvaging career over at high-sec and posting claims on threads such as this that you are really an alt of a sovereign null resident. You have a penchant for story telling after all! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1369
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:41:14 -
[3816] - Quote
Querns wrote:Xpaulusx wrote:I can see new subscriptions soaring under these conditions............Oh wait. Confirming that new players subscribe to run L4 missions and highsec incursions. Wasn't there some talk about people who just log in and level up their ravens or something? As if to suggest such people do exist in numbers worthy of some note?
That said aside from raising the bar of entry with standings there isn't much of a nerf. If anything there is a relative buff for missioning in highsec. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10157
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:41:24 -
[3817] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I was able to earn 108m an hour in Cobalt Edge with a carrier and oracle on grid Wow, 108 mil per hour (54 mil per hour per toon). Nice. In high sec you can use a Mach and make 86 mil per hour doing lvl 3 missions while being protected by CONCORD. So for the cost of using TWO characters and a CAPITAL SHIP that takes months to train for, and while flying in space where the space police won't help you, you get a whopping, mind blowing 22 million isk extra per hour total. Thanks for helping us empirically demonstrate the imbalances we were discussing, imbalances that end up distorting everything ccp tries to do with null sec. Jeez Jenn, let it go man. CCP ain't listening to you. Jenn makes a point by presenting actual figures and math that can be substantiated. So far, you have brought nothing to the ongoing discussion besides " CCP SAYS SO". Unless you have a serious intention of starting a new religion with various CCP developers who misread statistics as deities, you are trolling and you will get laughed at. Meanwhile Jenn and other people who can provide figures and solid arguments can and will continue posting. If you are serious about the religion thing, this is not the place. Not gonna try and make out that highsec doesn't have some serious isk issues (too much!) but taking an optimal blitzing mission runners setup and saying look how much all of these guys are making is a load of ball I'm afraid. - Most highsec mission runners don't blitz and most don't run for the faction offering the optimal isk/LP conversion and on that note SoE LP conversion is tanking and has been since the new ships were released last year. Once too many people jump on the isk train for a single type of LP, it devalues. Feel free to check out the downward trends on pretty much all the items from their store (probes and launchers, virtue implants and faction ships). If everyone was running optimal setups for SoE LP then it would have bottomed out ages ago and we'd be looking at minimal LP returns. Fair enough it is currently at 2k/LP so no-one can whine, but it won't be for long.
- You're comparing afk drone boats against someone flying a machariel at pretty much perfect efficiency for a spreadsheet scoreboard - it's apples and oranges.
- Sorry but moongoo. I know it's not a personal income but it's a net profit for that individual if they don't have to expend on pvp ships because of SRP paid for passively by moon goo.
I do still think highsec earns far too much for the risk involved but I just wanted to point out some *serious* issues with your methods of comparison.
This is the kind of extreme ignorance that always, and I mean always, distorts the discussion.
Go find the post where I said 'everyone in high sec is making tons of money'. Sov Null sec as a whole probably generates more income that most other places, mainly because the main pve activity (anoms) is semi afk-able.
The POINT is, for the INDIVIDUAL pilot who knows what he is doing, Sov Null is just about the WORST place to LIVE. Great choice if you have an Ishtar alt and don't mind replacing ishtars every week, poor choice if you are a settler who wants to LIVE in null.
If you want to 'live' there, it's much much better to do pve in other places and just funnel the money over to a null alt. Many people who live in null do this, while others accept the "100-ish mil per hour" glass ceiling of null and make due. The answer to the imbalance (that people deny) isn't more isk in null anomalies (they generate too much liquid isk as it is), it's a top down review of pve in EVE coupled with a change in how wealth is accumulated in sov null. Sov null missions would pretty much fix the entire issue.
Outside of null I can figure out new and better ways to make isk, how to blitz, how to maximize isk per LP and so forth. In sov null, once you make it up to 'I can fly a carrier" there is zero you can do to improve on that because of the nature of anomalies (unlike incursions, bringing more people lowers your income, not raises it' because of how deadpsace npc bounties work). But until that happens, the core problem that creates the current situation in null will continue and "FW 2.0" will fail because their will not be the motivation to put up with it's crap when you can make isk elsewhere. This happened before btw.
The question that always comes to mind when I read tripe like the post I'm quoting is "if you don't understand the issue, why are eyou commenting?". |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
357
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:42:30 -
[3818] - Quote
That's a very personal and terribly hurtful attack there but I already had one 'official' nullsec resident correlate my point of view so I'm not even mad.
@ jenn I was talking about using figures from someone racing through l3s.
I already agreed it was still the right conclusion but I guess victim complex took over. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6610
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:49:00 -
[3819] - Quote
In the end, people want our 0.0 dream to end, and CCP also has similar 0.0 visions.
They need only wait for the day the sov laser is within their grasp and then the end will arrive.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Freedom Nadd
University of Caille Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 03:21:38 -
[3820] - Quote
As there appears to be a little confusion.
My Plan was to increase the viability of Nullsec by increasing the desire to be IN nullsec.
As CCP has stated, Null has a huge financial gain to those who exploit it to the max, and yet High has a marginally lesser financial income for what is universally accepted lesser risk and investment requirement.
If CCP are serious about balancing the risk/investment reward calculation they must reduce high sec income.
My post was not about Sov per say, although it is obvious CCP are training alliances to failcascade and join Faction Warfare. |
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
357
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 03:23:42 -
[3821] - Quote
I would say I agree but I'll probably get jumped on by people misconstruing what I've said.
(I agree) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6613
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 03:44:27 -
[3822] - Quote
Freedom Nadd wrote:My post was not about Sov per say, although it is obvious CCP are training alliances to failcascade and join Faction Warfare. (messing with our) politics by other means, after all...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
7918
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 04:25:02 -
[3823] - Quote
Freedom Nadd wrote:As there appears to be a little confusion.
My Plan was to increase the viability of Nullsec by increasing the desire to be IN nullsec.
Well, I am certainly confused.
Nothing in your plan even mentioned null. It was all about nerfing high sec.
Never has forcing one group to go into a place they don't want to be ever equated with increasing desire. What it does equate with is plummeting subscription numbers.
Increase the viability of null by doing stuff in null. Not by wrecking every other region so you can have your cake and eat it too. So come up with a new plan that makes some sense and actually has something to do with improving 0.0. Then get back to us.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
123
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 06:14:43 -
[3824] - Quote
Have the corporation declare one held system the capital system. The capital system would declare the prime time and once the capital system moves to level two any system connected to it by a gate could be taken and upgraded to level one. Each level the capital increased would allow the connected system to upgrade one level and every system connected to level two or higher systems could be claimed and upgraded to one level below the connected claimed system.
Each sov level would increase the true sec level and allow for better wealth generation. Each Sov level increase would decrease the prime time window by one hour. Level one sov would have a 5 hour prime time and L2 would have a 4 PT and so on with L5 having a 1 hour PT window.
Having the sov level increase true sec level would give residents a reason to live in the space and upgrade their system. The ISK income still needs to be looked at but at least it would give all sov null the ability to have the highest rewards for being active in the system. As the group grows they could spread out organically out from their capital system.
The leveling system would ensure that used systems became better ISK generators and harder to take but wouldn't allow groups to just take buffer regions without living there. Active occupancy would determine how much ISK could be generated in that system.
All the E-link stuff is good, tweak the values so that some ships can't disengage easily and run away but the system as a whole is good.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2913
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 07:15:59 -
[3825] - Quote
Dear Alp Khan, my friend knows someone who met someone who said that he earns billions of isk in null by ratting in a cruiser.
Thr above sentence is about a scientific as the claims that Jenn, Karrous and La 'The Scientist' Nariz make.
CCP have frequently shown that Null is doing very nicely in terms of rat bounties etc.
If CCP ever decide that they are indeed unbalanced, they will do something about it.
What some in null do not seem to understand is that some of us simply do not like the ego wars etc in null.
This is not a signature.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
500
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 07:23:03 -
[3826] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:CCP have frequently shown that Null is doing very nicely in terms of rat bounties etc.
If CCP ever decide that they are indeed unbalanced, they will do something about it.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha |
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 08:25:32 -
[3827] - Quote
Comparing highsec with nullsec is kind of easy.
PvE ships and equipment are comparable at least isk wise for high and null, so there is no real difference. Both regions loose ships on an regularly basis, possibly more in null.
The most important difference is the corp. In high it is a disadvantage to be in a corp because of wardeck. In null it is an advantage or a must to be in a corp at least regarding sov.
I know that we are earning more isk in null with a secure status<-0.4? but the reason why we earn more is because we play together. In null we need to play together because of poses, stations, sov structures, logistic, leadership, active and passive defence, you may add many more to this list but it's always a huge investment for the corp and a continuous maintaining.
So: Highsec has a solo playstyle and nullsec is a group playstyle and it is fair to get rewarded because of playing together.
Obviously there is no goal from CCP getting more player into nullsec because this could be done by making nullsec and empty parts of it more attractive. Instead we will get something that makes it harder to keep, maintain and organize in a way that many more player will decide to live without a corp. In special all player that can't be online every day for 4h will be left out of null sooner or later.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 08:33:39 -
[3828] - Quote
xttz wrote:Nyphur wrote:An alternative sov system:Here's a much simpler and more intuitive sov system that still uses most of the proposal:
- There are NO reinforcement timers on any structures. Instead, they're vulnerable to capture during your alliance's vulnerability window.
- Each structure has an ownership rating out of 4 or 5.
- Using an Entosis module to capture a structure takes about 40 minutes and reduces the ownership rating by 1 point.
- Each structure can only lose a maximum of 1 point per day.
- If ownership drops to 0, the structure becomes neutral and can be captured the next day, or ownership switches immediately to the attacker.
- Every day that a structure isn't successfully attacked, it regains 1-2 points of ownership automatically.
- Split the Entosis module into a small Defensive version anyone can use to block capture and a capital sized Offensive version that's required to capture something.
I really like the tug-of-war aspect of this, akin to the old POS-based system but without endless structure shooting. This makes it possible for an attacker to make gradual progress without being dropped back to square 1 for losing a single fight. The simplest metric here would be to re-purpose the current Strategic Index, and have it increase by 1 for each 24 hour period it's not successfully attacked. As this index is tied to the capture timer, this creates an increasing sense of urgency as each day of failed defense makes subsequent days harder.. Now that I think about it, using the Strategic Index won't work because each structure has to be capturable independently in the new system. Using the Strategic Index as the maximum ownership score could work, but then you would only have 1 point in a system you don't have a strategic index in and that's not really enough warning. Each structure will definitely need to have its own independent capture score.
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
94
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 10:05:00 -
[3829] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: I fear for the future of eve..
Like how Eric manages to change wording to suit his own need.
Is a little naive if he believes this change does not exactly suit Tri's "previous" way of living and playing in nulsec. Adapt or die, is very apt here, look at the sov map and ask yourself - who is the best looking target ATM, a 15,000 man alliance or a 700 man alliance?
A little whiner - "I can only play how ccp let me" - yet is criticizing others for saying they don't like this change and would like to see it made better. Poking fun at those who would push for a better sov system for all.
And being narrow minded enough to want to nerf the rest of eve to suit him , well, nough said.
Eric 4CSMX1 - NEVER
The point was with the changes proposed, that I could also be whining of the changes here beacause they are not filling my personal shang'ri'la way of seeing eve. It was an example of how the game would look, IF I was to propose the changes purely to suit my needs and ignoring all the rest. Too complicated mindgames to you it seems. I did not anywhere claim that those changes would be good for the game. And ofc I can only play the way CCP let's me to play. It's their game for the love of all that is holy.
The criticizing was made towards the majority of posters here, not towards everyone. I have read about 50% of all posts here in this thread and of those posts most ppl want to change the proposed system so that their own individual gamestyle gets profit out of it and ignores all others. Generalization yes. My bad. |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 10:27:37 -
[3830] - Quote
Here's what it looks like is going on(and is going on) the number of long term players that aren't playing right now is silly, subscriptions may be up now due to an unusual influx of new players, but how long they will be with the game is dubious. Phase 1, remove the ability for people to play the game Phase 2, remove their will to play the game Phase 3, maybe attempt to give them some kind of a cookie with some other thing?
I've disagreed with the direction of these changes since it started. You're doing a lot of things to de-sandbox the sandbox in a very bad way. First you make it so its really hard to get anywhere and do anything with capitals, then you propose basically making them useless until you've repurposed them in some way that you aren't sure about yet. It appears you're trying to get the playerbase to break into smaller groups in an attempt to bring back small gang pvp on a more regular scale, this is futile because there will not be any de-blobbing or disbanding of any player organization as long is there's other large organizations.
Problems that need to be addressed sov nullsec being stagnant, with vast amounts of unused space. The entosis link is a nice thought and all to change how the space is fought over, the initial proposal is riddled with holes and lack of details. The worst thing to come out is the primetime mechanic, this is a really bad thing that will further decay timezones outside of the prime area, where-ever it lands, there's nothing worse than logging in and missing a fight because it wasn't in your timezone, what you're proposing is potentially making that a permanent thing.
SOV PVE Content being boring, repetitive, and can support a very finite number of players, im not saying allow us agents, preferably there would be something better, but if it comes down to it ill take it, Sov nullsec is the only space that cannot support an infinite number of PVE content, npc nullsec can, lowsec can, and highsec can through agents. Sov nullsec pvp shouldn't be based around having a staging system that everyone sits around in and does nothing while their alts farm isk. The player experience should be a more complete for a single account with pvp and pve content available locally for all.
AFK CLOAKY CAMPING. This has been largely weakened by the force projection changes, the ability to bait with warp core stabs after being dropped is hilarious, space herpies. It still is a very tired boring mechanic with no real counter. I went through a wormhole with an alt to somewhere in drone space that was really out in the middle of nowhere, it was an xxdeathxx renter system, anyway my entertainment for the day was giggled while chatting with these renters in local that hid in their pos from my scout cheetah, for 8 hours they did nothing while i did nothing, they hid from an invisible threat that wasn't even there, they cried in local about why i was there and to please leave them alone, i was briefly tempted to offer them a price to leave, and a higher price to leave and collapse the wormhole, but i figured they probably wouldn't pay me anyway and didnt want to lower myself to that level, instead i just commented on whatever they were doing / flying and it was hilarious when one of them was flying around the pos in an interceptor attempting to decloak me. Anyway moral of the story, its a troll mechanic that serves nothing but tears and sadness so you can bully someone whether you have the intention of doing something or not while not putting yourself at any risk.
Botting is still very much a thing in many places, the proposed local delay could have some effect there, but realistically if there is a delay put on local of even 30 seconds sov nullsec will need some kind of a cookie to balance it out, either the removal of the intercepters interdiction nullification or some kind of PVE bonus as previously stated. Right now nullsec is basically just a farming ground for people farming isk through the most boring methods possible, or people attmepting to kill the people farming isk through the most boring methods possible.
SOV PVP being all about very important timers that get blobbed, in some ways i really wish we could go back to the tower spamming, that really made war hell back in the day. 24/7 content with a reason, it was hell, it burned people out, people hated it, but it was constant content. and provided every form of warfare. The arbitrary timer system that was implemented in Dominion was one of the worst possible things and is the reason we have constantly blobbed up to 1000, 2000 then 4000 people in single fights, the force projection change that aimed to remove our ability to transverse is one of the biggest mistakes ever done, changing the reason everyone is going to fight over one system is the real key to fixing it.
Renters being renters, Not sure which is worse, the fact that there's people with the ability to hold large amounts of space to rent, or that there are people that actually agree to pay the rent. Its a disease on the game and should be snuffed out by whatever means needed. And again back to botting renter empires allow people to do botting and RMT via third parties with some degree of safety.
Anyway I'm going back to playing minecraft and watching TV, hopefully by June there's something to do in this terrible game. |
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
94
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 11:04:44 -
[3831] - Quote
GeeBee wrote:SNIP a wall of text
I found myself reading this above post and first started to grow red on my face of fury but towards end of it starting to nod as agreement.
Now there is actually one point I would like to tackle of it. The mission running part.
Fozzie said on EDU that delayed local is coming to nullsec. That creates lots of problems isk making wise. However, the agents to sov stations could be a pretty much perfect counter to that.
Not only would it generate infinite support of isk to null dwellers, it would also make ppl to travel a bit between systems. Travelling around = content.
But the missions would be a good counter to AFK cloaking, as the missions need to be probed down. And with the combination of nerfing pvp probing that Fozzie hinted, this could be a good thing. The mission runner is safe as long as he pays attention and as long as their homespace has intel working on gate travels. The AFK cloaker cant just idly scan anomalies and get a target, but haveto use combat probes and thus become visible.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
863
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 11:07:14 -
[3832] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Would you guys all please unsub now and get it over with so CCP can move forward and away from "Sov Rent Online"? If you would have provided content instead of "blue donut online" none of this would have happened. Your bad I guess. It looks like we are already unsubbing. Average online numbers from 2010 including 2013 49k. Apr 14 to Mar 15 37k average online ppl. Thanks for making room for younger players. +1
Where are the younger players? If PCU is going steadily down, then people are leaving faster than they are joining. Any Eve player should want more people around, not less. More people: more targets.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 11:12:59 -
[3833] - Quote
I honestly don't see where any of this is going to amount to much anyways, CCP asks for feedback but yet seams to listen to none of it. I get they want to see more pvp in eve, but changing every mechanic to favor the Hit and run PVP'ers will only steepen the slide from EVE to space based WOW. |
Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances CAStabouts
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 11:24:53 -
[3834] - Quote
Scrap the strategic indices. Keep the current decay mechanic for the military and industrial indices. If they are at zero, all sov structures go into permanent vulnerable mode. As long as the indices stay above zero, prime time mechanic applies.
Ought to quickly weed out absentee landlords. It also ought to quickly flag those systems that actually are "worthless" in terms of being viable for folks to live in; those systems could then be buffed over time to make it worth people's time to go occupy and hold them.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
368
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 11:26:55 -
[3835] - Quote
Ugly Eric wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: I fear for the future of eve..
Like how Eric manages to change wording to suit his own need.
Is a little naive if he believes this change does not exactly suit Tri's "previous" way of living and playing in nulsec. Adapt or die, is very apt here, look at the sov map and ask yourself - who is the best looking target ATM, a 15,000 man alliance or a 700 man alliance?
A little whiner - "I can only play how ccp let me" - yet is criticizing others for saying they don't like this change and would like to see it made better. Poking fun at those who would push for a better sov system for all.
And being narrow minded enough to want to nerf the rest of eve to suit him , well, nough said.
Eric 4CSMX1 - NEVER The point was with the changes proposed, that I could also be whining of the changes here beacause they are not filling my personal shang'ri'la way of seeing eve. It was an example of how the game would look, IF I was to propose the changes purely to suit my needs and ignoring all the rest. Too complicated mindgames to you it seems. I did not anywhere claim that those changes would be good for the game. And ofc I can only play the way CCP let's me to play. It's their game for the love of all that is holy. The criticizing was made towards the majority of posters here, not towards everyone. I have read about 50% of all posts here in this thread and of those posts most ppl want to change the proposed system so that their own individual gamestyle gets profit out of it and ignores all others. Generalization yes. My bad. Fair enough but a big problem with this thread has been people saying things like "yeah this is great will mean end of goons" or worse, "this is terrible" but not adding reason or alternatives to their comments.
As I've said in previous posts, the stated goals of the change is great, the way in which those changes are being implemented leaves a lot to be desired. Players like you, who have been around a while and have personal feelings and ideas should be posting them here for CCP to see. This is our game and if we can't stand up and tell CCP how we want to play it, we will end up with Sov warfare based on FW concepts, where only a few from each alliance can participate depending on "prime time" selected. Others may not want to play the same as you or have the same ideas but for the sake of "our game" get them out there to be seen. You may just have that one idea that could make things work.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
210
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 11:34:09 -
[3836] - Quote
Freedom Nadd wrote:As there appears to be a little confusion.
My Plan was to increase the viability of Nullsec by increasing the desire to be IN nullsec.
Unfortunately, highsec and nullsec are not the only two choices available.
What CCP needs to do is buff nullsec for a change. Give people an actual reason to want to fight for their space besides moons and epeen. It's basically the same problem with highsec wardecs, on a grander scale.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 11:35:05 -
[3837] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:The spreading sov defence across the constellation is nice, the defensive bonus too, freeporting even sounds hilarious.
Primetime system that puts ALL the sov warfare obligations of a single alliance onto only one TZ is absolutely terrible. Why should I be excluded from participating because my alliance primetime is EU and I'm US? Is the solution to just "go find another alliance"?
Is forcing groups to ditch people outside of their primetime intended, since non primetime players are basically useless for anything except leeching and POS warfare.
I also notice a total lack of information on benefits to holding sov, just things that make it far more difficult to do so.
No mentioned benefits of holding this now much harder to keep sov, no mention of say volume reduction for system upgrades, no benefits of Sov cost reduction for activity, or actual benefits to holdings sov.
Just making it harder to hold space, easier to destroy sov structures like Ihubs, and no counterpart to allow rapidly flipped sov to be rebuilt or repaired in a timely manner.
TLDR: Can we get a volume reduction on the various sov upgrades so the larger ones can actually be brought in via JF? And/or changes that actively upgrade space over time, so that being compressed down into mediocre space allows a higher degree of player use in a smaller area?
I think the point is to make it so there IS NO point to holding sov anymore. CCP is making it very clear that if it dosent lead to ships going boom they no longer want it in EVE and the only advantage to holding sov long term is if you have a group that can mine it and produce goods for your Corp, alliance or coalition.
this is just the continuation that CCP has been on for the last year or so to cut the industry out of eve and make it in to a space based version of WOW |
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 11:56:04 -
[3838] - Quote
I still don't understand why alliance would fight over sov in the first place?
There is no actual value in owning sov for alliances, the incomes from upgraded rattingsystems, combat complex systems and mining systems goes mosty to the individuals, not the alliances. And the incomes from ratting/mining/plexing are so small compared to the incomes from the R64 moons - for alliances.
And with Entosis-links any sov will be easy to take (which is good).
But why protect something that has no value and that is easy for others to take? I just don't get it?
No alliance will fight for sov in nullsec, because there are no incomes for alliances connected to sov! Every alliance will fight for the R64 moons in nullsec. Because that's where the incomes are for alliances.
So tie the incomes from R64 moons to sov, somehow let sov and upgrades regulate the incomes from the R64 moons: * R64 moon without sov -> bad yield from that moon * R64 moon with sov -> better yield from that moon * R64 with sov and upgrades -> really good yield from that moon
This gives a reason for alliances to own sov. Sov is still easier to take using the Entosis links, but now alliances will have strong incitaments to protect their sov. The incitament to protect R64 moons is allready there.
Now there will be fights over both moons and sov between alliances. Owning sov is necessary and important. Owning sov affects the incomes of alliances, not of individuals. Attacking your enemies sov weakens them, it's a viable and important strategic target. Content is generated.
CEO Svea Rike
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
303
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 11:59:57 -
[3839] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Dear Alp Khan, my friend knows someone who met someone who said that he earns billions of isk in null by ratting in a cruiser.
Unironically, that pretty much seems like the only thing you can credibly say about the whole individual income debate. And mind you, your post is deceptive, you are projecting yourself onto the people who avoid word of mouth and talk of their own experiences.
Why? Because the posters who openly say that null individual income is the worst in EVE back it up with figures. They compare it to wormholes, low-sec FW and highsec L4s and incursions and find it to be minuscule in comparison with even highsec. Their figures and math show the obvious conclusion that can also reach through calculations.
On the other hand, I haven't seen you provide figures so far. You haven't provided a coherent argument either. In the absence of those, you will find it difficult to be taken seriously by your peers.
|
Freedom Nadd
University of Caille Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 12:41:51 -
[3840] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Freedom Nadd wrote:As there appears to be a little confusion.
My Plan was to increase the viability of Nullsec by increasing the desire to be IN nullsec.
Well, I am certainly confused. Nothing in your plan even mentioned null. It was all about nerfing high sec. Never has forcing one group to go into a place they don't want to be ever equated with increasing desire. What it does equate with is plummeting subscription numbers. Increase the viability of null by doing stuff in null. Not by wrecking every other region so you can have your cake and eat it too. So come up with a new plan that makes some sense and actually has something to do with improving 0.0. Then get back to us. Mr Epeen
Working on the CCP assumption that a) Nullsec is a-okay and does not need any further "increases" to income generation and by extension b) Null is the ultimate risk to reward and as such should be the upper limit on potential income for a capsuleer.
Starting from those two givens, it is obvious that to make null sec truly attractive you must balance the income within the less risky areas, as it currently stands there is a the dichotomy that high sec is both the safest space to operate AND the most lucrative individually. Until that is addressed, null sec will only reamain truly attractive to those who want to plant towers and live off moon goo. |
|
Erasmus Grant
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 12:55:46 -
[3841] - Quote
[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2dgv6n/ccp_allows_siphon_detection_through_api/[/url]
If you cannot get this right . . . |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 13:24:01 -
[3842] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:[Because the posters who openly say that null individual income is the worst in EVE back it up with figures. They compare it to wormholes, low-sec FW and highsec L4s and incursions and find it to be minuscule in comparison with even highsec. Their figures and math show the obvious conclusion that can also reach through calculations.
Only CCP has hard numbers about those things, and they probably should publish them to end that debate. I very seriously doubt that if you averaged out income per player per hour for high sec, low sec, and null sec dwellers, that null sec would come out on the short end. Income inequality is probably greatest in null sec. The rich get richer while most players just get by and are in fact probably no better off than if they were playing in high-sec or low-sec.
CCP probably should publish some numbers about that. They have an economist on staff. It shouldn't be too hard. Of all the income being generated in null, how is it being distributed? Is there massive income inequality, similar to the real-world? If so, it would account for the perception that null income is bad, when it's actually not.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
484
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 13:25:29 -
[3843] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:I still don't understand why alliance would fight over sov in the first place?
Bowbndr wrote: I think the point is to make it so there IS NO point to holding sov anymore. CCP is making it very clear that if it dosent lead to ships going boom they no longer want it in EVE and the only advantage to holding sov long term is if you have a group that can mine it and produce goods for your Corp, alliance or coalition.
It's not so much that there's no point in holding sov, it's that the old motivations which used to drive conflict have gradually eroded over the years and are no longer fresh and exciting.
Back around 2005-2008 the big draw in taking sov was in using the shiny new toys like starbases, outposts, jump bridges and titans to build an empire. You went out to conquer an outpost because it was worth something, both to your alliance and the one you took it from. You built Titans because a single one had a huge effect. This inspired all sorts of groups into null-sec to work together, both building their own empires and destroying others.
Now every other nullsec system has an outpost. Supercaps are commonplace; they're no longer an achievement for a group of players and will soon lack a clear purpose. Inflation has also reduced the relative value of both, and now they're commonly affordable by individuals rather than corp/alliance investments as was originally intended. Jump drives and bridges have been severely nerfed, and starbases have seen very little change for almost a decade. The whole system Dominion introduced for managing system upgrades was never iterated on, with all sorts of balance issues that persist from the very first day they arrived on TQ. All the tools that used to drive the building and conflicts of empires are stale and decrepit.
What we need is some combination of new toys to play with, and some attention paid to the existing ones to make them fresh again. We've heard so many ideas about player-built stargates, new structures, and generally shaping the space an alliance lives in. Now they need to materialise. CCP needs to drop some fresh sand in the sandbox to encourage players to build new castles, conquer them, or knock them down. Something to drive new empires with, and create new history. The rest will attend to itself. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
368
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 13:38:40 -
[3844] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:I still don't understand why alliance would fight over sov in the first place?
There is no actual value in owning sov for alliances, the incomes from upgraded rattingsystems, combat complex systems and mining systems goes mosty to the individuals, not the alliances. And the incomes from ratting/mining/plexing are so small compared to the incomes from the R64 moons - for alliances.
And with Entosis-links any sov will be easy to take (which is good).
But why protect something that has no value and that is easy for others to take? I just don't get it?
No alliance will fight for sov in nullsec, because there are no incomes for alliances connected to sov! Every alliance will fight for the R64 moons in nullsec. Because that's where the incomes are for alliances.
So tie the incomes from R64 moons to sov, somehow let sov and upgrades regulate the incomes from the R64 moons: * R64 moon without sov -> bad yield from that moon * R64 moon with sov -> better yield from that moon * R64 with sov and upgrades -> really good yield from that moon
This gives a reason for alliances to own sov. Sov is still easier to take using the Entosis links, but now alliances will have strong incitaments to protect their sov. The incitament to protect R64 moons is allready there.
Now there will be fights over both moons and sov between alliances. Owning sov is necessary and important. Owning sov affects the incomes of alliances, not of individuals. Attacking your enemies sov weakens them, it's a viable and important strategic target. Content is generated.
Biggest problems with this proposal (which has already been posted to death) is; Simply tying sov to moons still only allows no-one but the biggest alliances to hold sov and moons of any consequence. There are nearly as many money moons (can't just do this for R64's, has to be ALL moons) in lowsec as there are in nul and you can't just remove them.
I do agree it needs to be made harder for the big alliances to keep their moons but tying them to sov is not a solution. This would be especially bad under the proposed sov changes. All a large alliance or coalition would need to do is hold sov by camping 1,000 or 2,000 members in the constellation. As it is now, there is a chance to take a moon if you have the numbers and will to do so because most money moon systems have no-one living in them but if there are 2,000 players living in the system only a determined group of 4,000 or 5,000 is going to take it from them.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
357
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 13:43:43 -
[3845] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Biggest problems with this proposal (which has already been posted to death) is; Simply tying sov to moons still only allows no-one but the biggest alliances to hold sov and moons of any consequence. The spread of moons means lots of isolated pockets of sov = even harder to defend that sov (even though the POS themselves will mostly be safe due to supers threat and hp grinding).
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
94
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 13:49:52 -
[3846] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Ugly Eric wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: I fear for the future of eve..
Like how Eric manages to change wording to suit his own need.
Is a little naive if he believes this change does not exactly suit Tri's "previous" way of living and playing in nulsec. Adapt or die, is very apt here, look at the sov map and ask yourself - who is the best looking target ATM, a 15,000 man alliance or a 700 man alliance?
A little whiner - "I can only play how ccp let me" - yet is criticizing others for saying they don't like this change and would like to see it made better. Poking fun at those who would push for a better sov system for all.
And being narrow minded enough to want to nerf the rest of eve to suit him , well, nough said.
Eric 4CSMX1 - NEVER The point was with the changes proposed, that I could also be whining of the changes here beacause they are not filling my personal shang'ri'la way of seeing eve. It was an example of how the game would look, IF I was to propose the changes purely to suit my needs and ignoring all the rest. Too complicated mindgames to you it seems. I did not anywhere claim that those changes would be good for the game. And ofc I can only play the way CCP let's me to play. It's their game for the love of all that is holy. The criticizing was made towards the majority of posters here, not towards everyone. I have read about 50% of all posts here in this thread and of those posts most ppl want to change the proposed system so that their own individual gamestyle gets profit out of it and ignores all others. Generalization yes. My bad. Fair enough but a big problem with this thread has been people saying things like "yeah this is great will mean end of goons" or worse, "this is terrible" but not adding reason or alternatives to their comments. As I've said in previous posts, the stated goals of the change is great, the way in which those changes are being implemented leaves a lot to be desired. Players like you, who have been around a while and have personal feelings and ideas should be posting them here for CCP to see. This is our game and if we can't stand up and tell CCP how we want to play it, we will end up with Sov warfare based on FW concepts, where only a few from each alliance can participate depending on "prime time" selected. Others may not want to play the same as you or have the same ideas but for the sake of "our game" get them out there to be seen. You may just have that one idea that could make things work.
Well, I posted my actual thoughts and ideas like 100 pages ago :p
|
der Sardaukar
Balanced Unity Fatal Ascension
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 13:56:38 -
[3847] - Quote
The small red gnome leaves CCP and bring us Fatigue. Now the PL troll Fozzy bring stupid underdeveloped ideas to the SOV in EVE. He will also leave CCP in a few months i think. Sounds like an aditional sabotage to EVE instead of real development and balancing a great game over all.
Smells like he is payed for that from an "other" game developer company.
Until he leaves CCP the PL Fozzy is from now on my Fozzytroll.
FozzySov and FozzyTroll with Trollceptor. That matches together. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
368
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 14:02:03 -
[3848] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Biggest problems with this proposal (which has already been posted to death) is; Simply tying sov to moons still only allows no-one but the biggest alliances to hold sov and moons of any consequence. The spread of moons means lots of isolated pockets of sov = even harder to defend that sov (even though the POS themselves will mostly be safe due to supers threat and hp grinding). How is it harder to defend? A smart large alliance is going to spread members out to protect their most valued assets. They, in most cases have armies of allies close enough, they don't need to rely solely on their own membership to defend things.
Isolated pockets of sov are not going to be any harder for the bloks to defend than protecting those same moons is now. In fact it will be easier for them because all they need is more Entosis modules active and the war is over before it starts.
So yes by all means tie moons to sov, then sit back for the next 4 or 5 years and see how badly it fails to create content and change of moon ownership.
I dislike the bloks but would never (as some seem to be doing) underestimate their will to survive and grow.
It is going to take a lot more than "capture the flag" (entosis module) and "how much gold can Mario collect" (capture the most nodes) to break the determined and well organised bloks.
Some of the suggestions put forward by players may help to achieve a more level playing field in sov but CCP has tuned out, they have made their decision and for better or worse we are stuck with it.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
357
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 14:07:34 -
[3849] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:How is it harder to defend? A smart large alliance is going to spread members out to protect their most valued assets. They, in most cases have armies of allies close enough, they don't need to rely solely on their own membership to defend things.
Isolated pockets of sov are not going to be any harder for the bloks to defend than protecting those same moons is now. In fact it will be easier for them because all they need is more Entosis modules active and the war is over before it starts.
So yes by all means tie moons to sov, then sit back for the next 4 or 5 years and see how badly it fails to create content and change of moon ownership.
I dislike the bloks but would never (as some seem to be doing) underestimate their will to survive and grow.
It is going to take a lot more than "capture the flag" (entosis module) and "how much gold can Mario collect" (capture the most nodes) to break the determined and well organised bloks.
Some of the suggestions put forward by players may help to achieve a more level playing field in sov but CCP has tuned out, they have made their decision and for better or worse we are stuck with it. Divide and conquer, think that was Sun Tzu?
If they have to have small gangs spread out to protect their sovereignty boni for their moon goo then it means a relatively smaller group can pick off those smaller gangs rather than facing the whole army in one centralised location.
Sure they can bring in reinforcements for an RF timer 2 days later - but then the small gang can move to another isolated pocket etc etc.
It's almost the definition of guerilla warfare.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 14:14:33 -
[3850] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:
Back around 2005-2008 the big draw in taking sov was in using the shiny new toys like starbases, outposts, jump bridges and titans to build an empire. You went out to conquer an outpost because it was worth something, both to your alliance and the one you took it from. You built Titans because a single one had a huge effect. This inspired all sorts of groups into null-sec to work together, both building their own empires and destroying others.
Thats not really right, it was more to do with moons and the isk that could be generated passively. A by-product of that was that you really needed all those shiny toys to be able to defend POS's if battle occurred. Overtime, the prestige of owning a moon that could be capped and mined as dispeared as other means of making isk has come into the game. if you remember 2005-2010 it was impossible to support a 1000 man alliance in a small amount of systems becuase of the way ISK was made in null sec, back at that time it was belt ratting/mining and if you could be arsed you would scan anoms down. This has all been replaced with easier ways of making isk, there isn't the desire to own a high end moon now.
The null sec I see in the future is one close to the framework that has made FW so enjoyable for some. The constant fighting over systems and anoms makes FW faily enjoyable, scale that framework to null sec and you might get a less stagnant game play. |
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
210
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 14:23:18 -
[3851] - Quote
xttz wrote:Emmy Mnemonic wrote:I still don't understand why alliance would fight over sov in the first place? Bowbndr wrote: I think the point is to make it so there IS NO point to holding sov anymore. CCP is making it very clear that if it dosent lead to ships going boom they no longer want it in EVE and the only advantage to holding sov long term is if you have a group that can mine it and produce goods for your Corp, alliance or coalition.
It's not so much that there's no point in holding sov, it's that the old motivations which used to drive conflict have gradually eroded over the years and are no longer fresh and exciting. Back around 2005-2008 the big draw in taking sov was in using the shiny new toys like starbases, outposts, jump bridges and titans to build an empire. You went out to conquer an outpost because it was worth something, both to your alliance and the one you took it from. You built Titans because a single one had a huge effect. This inspired all sorts of groups into null-sec to work together, both building their own empires and destroying others. Now every other nullsec system has an outpost. Supercaps are commonplace; they're no longer an achievement for a group of players and will soon lack a clear purpose. Inflation has also reduced the relative value of both, and now they're commonly affordable by individuals rather than corp/alliance investments as was originally intended. Jump drives and bridges have been severely nerfed, and starbases have seen very little change for almost a decade. The whole system Dominion introduced for managing system upgrades was never iterated on, with all sorts of balance issues that persist from the very first day they arrived on TQ. All the tools that used to drive the building and conflicts of empires are stale and decrepit. What we need is some combination of new toys to play with, and some attention paid to the existing ones to make them fresh again. We've heard so many ideas about player-built stargates, new structures, and generally shaping the space an alliance lives in. Now they need to materialise. CCP needs to drop some fresh sand in the sandbox to encourage players to build new castles, conquer them, or knock them down. Something to drive new empires with, and create new history. The rest will attend to itself.
This. All of it. Fozzie, please take note.
While I like the new sov system in general, unless you combine that with a reason to want to hold sov, it's not going to attract the hungry, new, small entities that null sec so desperately needs.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
95
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 14:38:53 -
[3852] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:How is it harder to defend? A smart large alliance is going to spread members out to protect their most valued assets. They, in most cases have armies of allies close enough, they don't need to rely solely on their own membership to defend things.
Isolated pockets of sov are not going to be any harder for the bloks to defend than protecting those same moons is now. In fact it will be easier for them because all they need is more Entosis modules active and the war is over before it starts.
So yes by all means tie moons to sov, then sit back for the next 4 or 5 years and see how badly it fails to create content and change of moon ownership.
I dislike the bloks but would never (as some seem to be doing) underestimate their will to survive and grow.
It is going to take a lot more than "capture the flag" (entosis module) and "how much gold can Mario collect" (capture the most nodes) to break the determined and well organised bloks.
Some of the suggestions put forward by players may help to achieve a more level playing field in sov but CCP has tuned out, they have made their decision and for better or worse we are stuck with it. Divide and conquer, think that was Sun Tzu? If they have to have small gangs spread out to protect their sovereignty boni for their moon goo then it means a relatively smaller group can pick off those smaller gangs rather than facing the whole army in one centralised location. Sure they can bring in reinforcements for an RF timer 2 days later - but then the small gang can move to another isolated pocket etc etc. It's almost the definition of guerilla warfare.
And that is bad beacause?
I kinda thought that is the target to achieve with the changes. If CFC, N3 or RUSbloc cant defend their entire regioncoverage from this, they sure as hell deserve to loose some of it. If any of the above entities are unable to project a defending force large/skilled enough to intercept a RF attempt within their own space, they simply do not deserve to have that space.
If anything, I find the above kind of situation as the best case scenario. The big blocs still can defend with ease some quite significant amounts of space, but propably not everything. They need to focus on what areas they want to focus their homeline defends on and that they should be able to defend easily. The blocs also have a huge advantage in numbers of FC's. They are more likely to be able to field 10+ semi-independent fleets to intercept attemps here and there. And all the smaller entities who tries to RF sove propably does it mainly to get content, not to troll. I atleast dont see my alliance in any need of sovtrolling, just simple and pure content creation.
CFC will remain CFC, N3 will remain N3 and rusbloc will remain rusbloc. If (and hopefully when) they are not able to defend all of their tens of regions worth of space, good! Then we get more independent triers out there. Who by the way generate content to all the sov blockers aswell. The numbers still does matter, as they always should. This just even's the odds a bit, if the smaller entities like mine are able to outperform the bigger fleet's movements.
When this hits TQ, sure there will be few first weeks quite a lot of action on the sovmap. But I imagine it will easen up after the few first weeks of players testing the new system out. I have honestly hard time believeing that the trollceptor would ever become a real issue. Beacause first, it is just as boring to the attacker, as it is to the defender. Secondly beacause getting your system reinforced has no penalty whatsoever. Also the bigger empires (richer) are propably going to even more start to stack ships around their empires, so that they can fast move their warfleet there in ceppies, reship to pvp ships and go intercept.
With the modern jump ranges, jump fatigue, ceptor travelspeed and the proposed sov mechanics, I think what we going to see is a very well organized CFC and N3 with very difficult, if not impossible castles to take. However the era of bufferregions will end. A focused multifrontal attack will be impossible to defend (note: FOCUSED), until the target have only few regions left.
I think that the above kind of scenarios are exactly what this game needs and exactly what CCP is after with the proposed changes. As I said before, the general idea is awesome, just few things I think needs tweaking. Primetime being the one I mean. I would revert back to SBU's, but penalitize the system of having anchored or online SBU's by loosing all upgrades. Then put a 10x to the mineral amounts needed to build a SBU, so that they get so expensive, that noone drops them for trolling only purposes.
Numbers do matter and need to keep mattering. However the changes CCP have made lately and keep making makes the moving of the numbers more difficult, as it IMO should be. As it also RL is. Easy to move a 10 man squad fast and agile from place to place, but try to get a 1000 men to move as fast and as agile. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
358
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 14:45:02 -
[3853] - Quote
Ugly Eric wrote:And that is bad beacause?
I kinda thought that is the target to achieve with the changes. If CFC, N3 or RUSbloc cant defend their entire regioncoverage from this, they sure as hell deserve to loose some of it. If any of the above entities are unable to project a defending force large/skilled enough to intercept a RF attempt within their own space, they simply do not deserve to have that space.
If anything, I find the above kind of situation as the best case scenario. The big blocs still can defend with ease some quite significant amounts of space, but propably not everything. They need to focus on what areas they want to focus their homeline defends on and that they should be able to defend easily. The blocs also have a huge advantage in numbers of FC's. They are more likely to be able to field 10+ semi-independent fleets to intercept attemps here and there. And all the smaller entities who tries to RF sove propably does it mainly to get content, not to troll. I atleast dont see my alliance in any need of sovtrolling, just simple and pure content creation.
CFC will remain CFC, N3 will remain N3 and rusbloc will remain rusbloc. If (and hopefully when) they are not able to defend all of their tens of regions worth of space, good! Then we get more independent triers out there. Who by the way generate content to all the sov blockers aswell. The numbers still does matter, as they always should. This just even's the odds a bit, if the smaller entities like mine are able to outperform the bigger fleet's movements.
When this hits TQ, sure there will be few first weeks quite a lot of action on the sovmap. But I imagine it will easen up after the few first weeks of players testing the new system out. I have honestly hard time believeing that the trollceptor would ever become a real issue. Beacause first, it is just as boring to the attacker, as it is to the defender. Secondly beacause getting your system reinforced has no penalty whatsoever. Also the bigger empires (richer) are propably going to even more start to stack ships around their empires, so that they can fast move their warfleet there in ceppies, reship to pvp ships and go intercept.
With the modern jump ranges, jump fatigue, ceptor travelspeed and the proposed sov mechanics, I think what we going to see is a very well organized CFC and N3 with very difficult, if not impossible castles to take. However the era of bufferregions will end. A focused multifrontal attack will be impossible to defend (note: FOCUSED), until the target have only few regions left.
I think that the above kind of scenarios are exactly what this game needs and exactly what CCP is after with the proposed changes. As I said before, the general idea is awesome, just few things I think needs tweaking. Primetime being the one I mean. I would revert back to SBU's, but penalitize the system of having anchored or online SBU's by loosing all upgrades. Then put a 10x to the mineral amounts needed to build a SBU, so that they get so expensive, that noone drops them for trolling only purposes.
Numbers do matter and need to keep mattering. However the changes CCP have made lately and keep making makes the moving of the numbers more difficult, as it IMO should be. As it also RL is. Easy to move a 10 man squad fast and agile from place to place, but try to get a 1000 men to move as fast and as agile. I'm not saying it's bad at all :)
The original point by Sgt Ocker was "Biggest problems with this proposal (which has already been posted to death) is; Simply tying sov to moons still only allows no-one but the biggest alliances to hold sov and moons of any consequence."
I was saying that you would be quite easily able to contest the sov in such cases - but attempting to then control the moons afterwards would still be problematic as a POS fight still has the potential to be n+1 caps deciding the grid.
I guess the logical conclusion (assuming POS RF mechanics remain the same) might be a coalition owning POS in non-sov territory purely as a denial of resources tactic whilst owning Sov around the more locally based ones.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
95
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 14:50:10 -
[3854] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:
This. All of it. Fozzie, please take note.
While I like the new sov system in general, unless you combine that with a reason to want to hold sov, it's not going to attract the hungry, new, small entities that null sec so desperately needs.
I agree on this only too much.
I do not have any ready answers on how to make 0.0 more desireable. Only way I know would attract the new smaller groups in there is that there would be a lot of easy access pvp to be had.
A year ago or so I sat down and thought on how to make this happend. Only real way to make it happend I think is by changing the isk generation in the game totally. Only individuals should be able to make isk. Then the corporation makes isk from individuals in form of taxes. Alliance makes the same from corps in form of taxes. I honestly think that the main reason for PvP in 0.0 being so stagnant is SRP. PLEX prices are at ridicilious 800ish millions and meanwhile the individuals (I'm talking of John Doe the average player) are not able to create a lot more than that in a month with their 1-2 hours a day gametimes. So they cant afford to PvP. This was noticed by alliance leaders and thus they created SRP. Now John Doe can afford to loose a ship. No matter what kind of ship it is, but he can afford to loose it. So he joins a fleet. But he will not undock solo / duo / small gang to do shitall, if there is not a FC present promising the SRP for that particular fleet.
So if CCP would take away the isk from alliances and direct that to individuals that might change. It would take years to run out of the isk buffers the coalitions have, but atleast we would have a more promising future a head of us. Now, even if John Doe suddenly starts to make 4 billion isk / month with hes limited gametime, he will still not undock immediatelly to derp it. It takes time for the general attitudes to change. Other reason John Doe is not undocking for small gangs coming to poke him without a fleet is that he has learned, that those small gangs players are mostly quite good and they kill you likely. So why would he risk a ship he is likely to loose? No reason whatsoever. Thus he waits a FC to form a fleet with ECM and logi to make sure he dont loose a ship. And even then, if he looses, he gets it back from SRP. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8282
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 14:58:27 -
[3855] - Quote
xttz wrote:Emmy Mnemonic wrote:I still don't understand why alliance would fight over sov in the first place? Bowbndr wrote: I think the point is to make it so there IS NO point to holding sov anymore. CCP is making it very clear that if it dosent lead to ships going boom they no longer want it in EVE and the only advantage to holding sov long term is if you have a group that can mine it and produce goods for your Corp, alliance or coalition.
It's not so much that there's no point in holding sov, it's that the old motivations which used to drive conflict have gradually eroded over the years and are no longer fresh and exciting. Back around 2005-2008 the big draw in taking sov was in using the shiny new toys like starbases, outposts, jump bridges and titans to build an empire. You went out to conquer an outpost because it was worth something, both to your alliance and the one you took it from. You built Titans because a single one had a huge effect. This inspired all sorts of groups into null-sec to work together, both building their own empires and destroying others. Now every other nullsec system has an outpost. Supercaps are commonplace; they're no longer an achievement for a group of players and will soon lack a clear purpose. Inflation has also reduced the relative value of both, and now they're commonly affordable by individuals rather than corp/alliance investments as was originally intended. Jump drives and bridges have been severely nerfed, and starbases have seen very little change for almost a decade. The whole system Dominion introduced for managing system upgrades was never iterated on, with all sorts of balance issues that persist from the very first day they arrived on TQ. All the tools that used to drive the building and conflicts of empires are stale and decrepit. What we need is some combination of new toys to play with, and some attention paid to the existing ones to make them fresh again. We've heard so many ideas about player-built stargates, new structures, and generally shaping the space an alliance lives in. Now they need to materialise. CCP needs to drop some fresh sand in the sandbox to encourage players to build new castles, conquer them, or knock them down. Something to drive new empires with, and create new history. The rest will attend to itself.
As usual, Xttz Is Right (tm).
~hi~
|
Miner Damage
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Get Off My Lawn
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 15:09:56 -
[3856] - Quote
Would it be possible to have POS's and research/construction jobs add to a systems Industrial index? Just because we're not mining in that system doesn't mean that it's not being used for industry. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 15:17:31 -
[3857] - Quote
Miner Damage wrote:Would it be possible to have POS's and research/construction jobs add to a systems Industrial index? Just because we're not mining in that system doesn't mean that it's not being used for industry.
You could probably tie it back into the job cost formula somehow which is (IIRC) now based on actual activity in a system. Point is, I don't think it's undoable.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Syrilian
Ascending Angels
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 16:08:03 -
[3858] - Quote
So I am unclear about something. The intent of the Entosis Link is to encourage smaller skirmishes and to do away with "bashing". But what is to prevent "Entosis" bashing? What I mean, why not just send a very large fleet of t1 frigs equipped with links and just wear down the opponent by sheer numbers? Which is the whole point of the change, right? |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1174
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 16:21:50 -
[3859] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:CCP have frequently shown that Null is doing very nicely in terms of rat bounties etc.
If CCP ever decide that they are indeed unbalanced, they will do something about it.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Yeah, that's kinda my reaction, too. I recall vividly the great anom rebalance right after Dominion. I was living in Vale of the Silent at the time as a member of R.A.G.E. alliance. The space was actually worth living in back then. Now its a rental ghetto.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6617
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 18:06:28 -
[3860] - Quote
Syrilian wrote:So I am unclear about something. The intent of the Entosis Link is to encourage smaller skirmishes and to do away with "bashing". But what is to prevent "Entosis" bashing? What I mean, why not just send a very large fleet of t1 frigs equipped with links and just wear down the opponent by sheer numbers? Which is the whole point of the change, right? Not really
the hope is that magically huge numbers will attack the big bad guys (ie: the blobbers with huge numbers) out of no sov land, and will end their 0.0 dream that way
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6617
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 18:07:20 -
[3861] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:CCP have frequently shown that Null is doing very nicely in terms of rat bounties etc.
If CCP ever decide that they are indeed unbalanced, they will do something about it. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Yeah, that's kinda my reaction, too. I recall vividly the great anom rebalance right after Dominion. I was living in Vale of the Silent at the time as a member of R.A.G.E. alliance. The space was actually worth living in back then. Now its a rental ghetto. Vale of the silent? That's part of the Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
People are co-prospering there...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3218
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 20:11:23 -
[3862] - Quote
I fully expect CCP to do new things with Sov, that is new reasons to have it. But first they need to have a system for Sov that works. Or would you prefer fighting over Sov for something that really matters, using an untested, new system?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10162
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 20:29:39 -
[3863] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Dear Alp Khan, my friend knows someone who met someone who said that he earns billions of isk in null by ratting in a cruiser.
Unironically, that pretty much seems like the only thing you can credibly say about the whole individual income debate. And mind you, your post is deceptive, you are projecting yourself onto the people who avoid word of mouth and talk of their own experiences. Why? Because the posters who openly say that null individual income is the worst in EVE back it up with figures. They compare it to wormholes, low-sec FW and highsec L4s and incursions and find it to be minuscule in comparison with even highsec. Their figures and math show the obvious conclusion that can also reach through calculations. On the other hand, I haven't seen you provide figures so far. You haven't provided a coherent argument either. In the absence of those, you will find it difficult to be taken seriously by your peers.
You're replying to someone who is the actual poster child for "don't touch my high sec income" (he even admitted it, he makes isk in high sec for pvp ships he uses in low sec).
The problem is that such people are so incredibly short sighted it's not even funny. they don't get that the imbalance hurts them (with people who WOULD be in null living instead being in other parts of EVE doing things that pay out in LP, that lowers the incomes of the Josef Djugashvilis' of high sec...).
I stopped being surprised by what you describe a long time ago. This happened when I noticed that EVERY high sec vs null (or anywhere else) discussion was comprised of non-high sec types with facts and figures and personal experiences on one side, and on the other side was 'high sec' aka 'a friend I know told me he makes 7 trillion isk per hour just by jumping into null and shooting one rat' lol.
In other words, they think we are as greedy as they are (that's psychological projection for you), so they think we're trying to nerf them to hurt them when the real truth is that a proper balance benefits everyone as much as an imbalance screws everyone.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to cash in some more Federation Customs and Khanid Navy LPs that I got form NOT being in null sec where I should have been. |
Josef Djugashvilis
2914
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 20:49:10 -
[3864] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Dear Alp Khan, my friend knows someone who met someone who said that he earns billions of isk in null by ratting in a cruiser.
Unironically, that pretty much seems like the only thing you can credibly say about the whole individual income debate. And mind you, your post is deceptive, you are projecting yourself onto the people who avoid word of mouth and talk of their own experiences. Why? Because the posters who openly say that null individual income is the worst in EVE back it up with figures. They compare it to wormholes, low-sec FW and highsec L4s and incursions and find it to be minuscule in comparison with even highsec. Their figures and math show the obvious conclusion that can also reach through calculations. On the other hand, I haven't seen you provide figures so far. You haven't provided a coherent argument either. In the absence of those, you will find it difficult to be taken seriously by your peers. You're replying to someone who is the actual poster child for "don't touch my high sec income" (he even admitted it, he makes isk in high sec for pvp ships he uses in low sec). The problem is that such people are so incredibly short sighted it's not even funny. they don't get that the imbalance hurts them (with people who WOULD be in null living instead being in other parts of EVE doing things that pay out in LP, that lowers the incomes of the Josef Djugashvilis' of high sec...). I stopped being surprised by what you describe a long time ago. This happened when I noticed that EVERY high sec vs null (or anywhere else) discussion was comprised of non-high sec types with facts and figures and personal experiences on one side, and on the other side was 'high sec' aka 'a friend I know told me he makes 7 trillion isk per hour just by jumping into null and shooting one rat' lol. In other words, they think we are as greedy as they are (that's psychological projection for you), so they think we're trying to nerf them to hurt them when the real truth is that a proper balance benefits everyone as much as an imbalance screws everyone. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to cash in some more Federation Customs and Khanid Navy LPs that I got form NOT being in null sec where I should have been.
Dear, dear Jenn, CCP still ain't listening.
And CCP have acess to the facts, not the opinion of you and a few other malcontents.
Lordy, I only wish I did earn 100B plus per hour running missions in hi-sec to pay for my lo-sec pvp failures.
Fly safe
This is not a signature.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
369
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 22:14:59 -
[3865] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:How is it harder to defend? A smart large alliance is going to spread members out to protect their most valued assets. They, in most cases have armies of allies close enough, they don't need to rely solely on their own membership to defend things.
Isolated pockets of sov are not going to be any harder for the bloks to defend than protecting those same moons is now. In fact it will be easier for them because all they need is more Entosis modules active and the war is over before it starts.
So yes by all means tie moons to sov, then sit back for the next 4 or 5 years and see how badly it fails to create content and change of moon ownership.
I dislike the bloks but would never (as some seem to be doing) underestimate their will to survive and grow.
It is going to take a lot more than "capture the flag" (entosis module) and "how much gold can Mario collect" (capture the most nodes) to break the determined and well organised bloks.
Some of the suggestions put forward by players may help to achieve a more level playing field in sov but CCP has tuned out, they have made their decision and for better or worse we are stuck with it. Divide and conquer, think that was Sun Tzu? If they have to have small gangs spread out to protect their sovereignty boni for their moon goo then it means a relatively smaller group can pick off those smaller gangs rather than facing the whole army in one centralised location. Sure they can bring in reinforcements for an RF timer 2 days later - but then the small gang can move to another isolated pocket etc etc. It's almost the definition of guerilla warfare. Their reinforcements are all around them, they are called blues and the small gang is soon going to get tired of running around "to another isolated pocket" only to waste another 2 days.
Ok sure, I'll concede a determined small gang may succeed in RFing a few systems holding moons but as long as these large bloks have a pool of 40K + blues to call on - It Is All Pointless.
If I wanted to do FW and play capture the node - I would live in FW Space.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Flaming Butterfly
Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 22:17:24 -
[3866] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Hmm, I guess the big question is will an uberfleet just crush the objective with a huge amount of points. in your system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5568555#post5568555
Enough numbers in any system will crush the opponent.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
175
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 22:42:46 -
[3867] - Quote
Apropos of nothing, Eli Apol needs to make just one more post, FTW.
Top 10 ATM:
Eli Apol 199 (5,1%) Kaarous Aldurald 106 (2,7%) epicurus ataraxia 102 (2,6%) Arrendis 88 (2,3%) Alavaria Fera 87 (2,3%) Rain6637 74 (1,9%) afkalt 72 (1,9%) Lena Lazair 64 (1,7%) Jenn aSide 61 (1,6%) Lord TGR 61 (1,6%)
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
367
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 22:44:37 -
[3868] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Apropos of nothing, Eli Apol needs to make just one more post, FTW. Top 10 ATM: Eli Apol 199 (5,1%) Kaarous Aldurald 106 (2,7%) epicurus ataraxia 102 (2,6%) Arrendis 88 (2,3%) Alavaria Fera 87 (2,3%) Rain6637 74 (1,9%) afkalt 72 (1,9%) Lena Lazair 64 (1,7%) Jenn aSide 61 (1,6%) Lord TGR 61 (1,6%) Granted :)
Now do it by coalition
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Circumstantial Evidence
175
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 22:50:05 -
[3869] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:... Eli Apol needs to make just one more post, FTW. Granted :) Now do it by coalition Completion-ists can click the link, Chribba does the heavy lifting |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
367
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 22:56:48 -
[3870] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:... Eli Apol needs to make just one more post, FTW. Granted :) Now do it by coalition Completion-ists can click the link, Chribba does the heavy lifting Afaik that also includes about 100 posts of me denying that I'm purely a highsec salvager which have since hit the recycle bin :*(
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
|
HeXxploiT
Little Red X
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 23:11:37 -
[3871] - Quote
I cannot imagine a single change that would encourage more pilots to move to nulsec.
This is Fantastic!
Also don't think the module being fitted onto small inexpensive ships is going to be a big problem. If pilots & corporations will spend 80 mil on a 15mil ship by the hundreds then making the module only fit on a 100mil battleship certainly isn't going to stop them.
The purpose of this change is to make nulsec more dynamic. if these modules could only fit on caps then what would be the point as nothing would change at all in nul.
These changes will make nulsec only available to those entities willing to put the effort into actively defending it.
Stick to your guns Fozzie. |
Erasmus Grant
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 01:08:52 -
[3872] - Quote
When are they going to redo moons to where they're not only in the hands of the largest and most powerful pvp communities. I cannot even get a days siphoning done on a remote moon because of API data. . . I want to have just as easy source of ISK for my 30 man corp has that 300+ alliance/corp has |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
369
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 02:29:16 -
[3873] - Quote
HeXxploiT wrote:I cannot imagine a single change that would encourage more pilots to move to nulsec. This is Fantastic! Also don't think the module being fitted onto small inexpensive ships is going to be a big problem. If pilots & corporations will spend 80 mil on a module fitted to a 15mil ship by the hundreds then making the module only fit on a 100mil battleship certainly isn't going to stop them. The purpose of this change is to make nulsec more dynamic. If these modules could only fit on caps then what would be the point as nothing would change at all in nul. These changes will make nulsec only available to those entities willing to put the effort into actively defending it. Stick to your guns Fozzie. Really, you can't see the difference between fitting to a ship that warps at 8AU and is immune to bubbles vs a battleship that warps at 3.5 AU and has no such immunity?
These changes will only strengthen the large groups holdings in nulsec.
There is nothing dynamic about - Get as many blues as you can to better protect your space.
The Entosis module is the highest possible command module in the game and should be treated as such. Only battle cruisers and capitals can fit command links - Entosis is a command link.
T1 Entosis - Battle Cruisers and Carriers T2 Entosis - Command Ships and Supers.
If as is planned and sov is to remain a numbers game, make the numbers high for ship costs as well.
NB; A Nyx with T2 Entosis link active is going to generate far more interest than if it is on a condor.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
865
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 02:44:18 -
[3874] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:When are they going to redo moons to where they're not only in the hands of the largest and most powerful pvp communities. I cannot even get a days siphoning done on a remote moon because of API data. . . I want to have just as easy source of ISK for my 30 man corp has that 300+ alliance/corp has
300+ is a tiny alliance.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Proton Stars
OREfull
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 03:23:56 -
[3875] - Quote
There us so much stupidity in this thread from people who have never lived in null sec.
I can see that the first mass evac of a 0.0 entity has begun in the south. Pantsufarian and his rabble are starting to move out of space not worth owning! The mass exodus of sov space has begun. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6619
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 06:25:38 -
[3876] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:When are they going to redo moons to where they're not only in the hands of the largest and most powerful pvp communities. I cannot even get a days siphoning done on a remote moon because of API data. . . I want to have just as easy source of ISK for my 30 man corp has that 300+ alliance/corp has Like what they're doing with null... after it's been rendered of little value
You can go and grab r4 moons because, well they're not worth anything, really?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
500
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 08:58:34 -
[3877] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:When are they going to redo moons to where they're not only in the hands of the largest and most powerful pvp communities. I cannot even get a days siphoning done on a remote moon because of API data. . . I want to have just as easy source of ISK for my 30 man corp has that 300+ alliance/corp has
Don't make the mistake of assuming siphons are a money-making mechanic, they're not. Their in-game implementation conflicted with the stated goals CCP laid out and instead we ended up with a griefing mechanic that's deeply unpleasant for both parties and encourages as little conflict as possible.
Siphons could have been amazing content generators, providing a source of income for attackers and combat opportunities for defenders. Instead we got a poorly thought-out game mechanic where both the risk and potential reward for the attacker are low, the required effort from the defender is a horrible chore, and CCP had to fudge the API to make it even barely passable.
Now that Greyscale has departed for pastures new, you may be better off campaigning for siphons to be made useful. This is a much simpler project than overhauling moon-mining (although I do agree that needs to be done also). |
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
442
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 11:29:51 -
[3878] - Quote
NO CCP don't listen to them let the entosis link be fitted by ceptors, with no malus.
Put a 5 hours timer instead. remove off-grid boost ( i know i know nothing to do with the matter but i want this ) Delay ( not Wh-style ) but delay in term of time the local when you pop in system you'll pop in local chat in about 30 s :)
and for god sake open da door !!
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 12:05:35 -
[3879] - Quote
As the change decouples different sov structures form each other - why dont we have different capture mechanics for each of them?
1. I suggest the TCU should be captured in sort of a style used currently. Plant SBUs, wait 3 hours, then reinforce TCU in shield, then in armor, etc. A lot of people love blob warfare. And it's a selling point of EVE.
2. IHUBs can be captured with Entosis Link, alright.
3. Stations - let's be creative here. Do you remember the "Null Deal"? One of its points was to install NPC stations everywhere. What if instead, I could dock at sov stations? Let's say the alliance could anchor a structure called "auxiliary docking service" which costs like ~100 mil ISK and has ~1 mil EHP. As long as my alliance has auxiliary docking service near a station - I can dock in it. Of course, sov owner can dock regardless, and their allies as well. |
Richard Marte
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 12:17:09 -
[3880] - Quote
Not sure if somebody already mentioned/shot-down this idea, but I was wondering if a simple solution to the "trollceptor" problem would be to make any use of entosis links a fight to the death.
That is, if you deactivate your entosis link while anybody else still has one active, then you get a timer to re-activate your entosis link on the same target, and if that timer expires your ship explodes and perhaps even your pod as well. If you're jammed out then the timer wouldn't start until you're no longer jammed/etc, and the timer would prevent stupid stuff like drifting out of range from causing you to die.
This makes everybody contesting a structure put skin in the game. If you're uncontested you can still roll through and reinforce half of a region in a few hours, and that is fair. However, trollceptors would be limited to hitting a single target per ship, and then they have to go reship and of course eat their losses. Likewise, this would prevent defensive trolling - if a decent fleet shows up the defenders can't just send a bunch of interceptors to dance around making trouble for the attackers - at least not without expense. Either side could sacrifice ships as a delaying tactic if necessary to bring in reinforcements or whatever, but it would be at a cost. And, of course, the cost of the entosis link itself would be a factor in what is at stake. |
|
Jessy Andersteen
AdAstra. Beach Club
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 13:00:24 -
[3881] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
NB; A Nyx with T2 Entosis link active is going to generate far more interest than if it is on a condor.
No. Because we know WHO have a lot of Nyx. And it's only generate mega blob of Invincible Supers whom can Cluster F u c k the cluster if they have issues. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 13:08:52 -
[3882] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:As the change decouples different sov structures form each other - why dont we have different capture mechanics for each of them? 1. I suggest the TCU should be captured in sort of a style used currently. Plant SBUs, wait 3 hours, then reinforce TCU in shield, then in armor, etc. A lot of people love blob warfare. And it's a selling point of EVE. 2. IHUBs can be captured with Entosis Link, alright. 3. Stations - let's be creative here. Do you remember the " Null Deal"? One of its points was to install NPC stations everywhere. What if instead, I could dock at sov stations? Let's say the alliance could anchor a structure called "auxiliary docking service" which costs like ~100 mil ISK and has ~1 mil EHP. As long as my alliance has auxiliary docking service near a station - I can dock in it. Of course, sov owner can dock regardless, and their allies as well.
Why would you make the ihub easier to capture than the TCU when it is the far more valuable and difficult to replace structure? |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 13:57:49 -
[3883] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:As the change decouples different sov structures form each other - why dont we have different capture mechanics for each of them? 1. I suggest the TCU should be captured in sort of a style used currently. Plant SBUs, wait 3 hours, then reinforce TCU in shield, then in armor, etc. A lot of people love blob warfare. And it's a selling point of EVE. 2. IHUBs can be captured with Entosis Link, alright. 3. Stations - let's be creative here. Do you remember the " Null Deal"? One of its points was to install NPC stations everywhere. What if instead, I could dock at sov stations? Let's say the alliance could anchor a structure called "auxiliary docking service" which costs like ~100 mil ISK and has ~1 mil EHP. As long as my alliance has auxiliary docking service near a station - I can dock in it. Of course, sov owner can dock regardless, and their allies as well. Why would you make the ihub easier to capture than the TCU when it is the far more valuable and difficult to replace structure? I just want to see diversity. I want to see place for capital fights in new sov warfare. Swap construction costs and freighter requirements, whatever. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
214
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 14:24:31 -
[3884] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Erasmus Grant wrote:When are they going to redo moons to where they're not only in the hands of the largest and most powerful pvp communities. I cannot even get a days siphoning done on a remote moon because of API data. . . I want to have just as easy source of ISK for my 30 man corp has that 300+ alliance/corp has 300+ is a tiny alliance.
What is smaller than tiny?
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 14:31:46 -
[3885] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Rena'Thras wrote:Another note on the vulnerability window:
A friend of mine put it very elegantly - This completely destroys the concept of a sandbox more than any other single change in the history of Eve.
.
At first I disputed his claim...but then I found I couldn't actually think of any other anti-sandbox change in Eve of this magnitude, and had to submit that he's right. I tend to dislike hyperbole, but I had to concede the point.
This change directly prevents sandbox/chaos theory random events from happening because it places an artificial, hard coded (to the mechanics set) rule that prevents interactions from occurring. That is, in the absence of it, Sov interactions can occur at any time and place - hence the sandbox. But once implemented, it presents an (more) artificial wall in the sandbox, a gatekeeper, saying you can only play with this part of the sandbox between the hours of 1400 and 1800.
.
So while my initial opposition to it was based on lore reasons (my forementioned "wtf" factor), I now also oppose it on the grounds of it being yet another policeman in the sandbox directing the children at play.
Considering that's one of the three major draws of Eve (space game, sandbox/shared universe, geopolitics), that's very unfortunate. It's one of the main things that gives Eve its appeal! Not a good thing to take away. Just another to add to the ever growing list of limitations placed on the "sandbox" nature of Eve. Jump range nerfs Fatigue Home System Clones and the biggest nerf ever introduced to Eve CCP Fozzie
No see, I'm trying to offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Honestly, I have no major issues with those changes you listed.
Jump Range Nerfs - were necessary. IRL, the USA can't teleport their Carrier strike groups around the planet at a moment's notice. They have to prestige, pick what areas they think are most in need of the assets on, potentially, the shortest time scales (where will they need them in situations where they don't have days to wait for them to get on station), based, supply lines, etc.
The fact that we're seeing more small scale engagements, use of Dreads, and more overall activity in several parts of Null that were previously within range of being hot dropped. So this change I would chalk up as good.
.
Fatigue - is kind of like the vulnerability window. That is, a problem that requires a solution, but this is a clunky and awkward solution. As people have said, the fatigue should've on the ship not the pilot, though that would be more difficult to code. Likewise, it should not effect sub spa traveling through bridges. And it causes a similar problem to Raid lockouts in fantasy MMOs where you have players having to coordinate their timers as well as their online time.
Again, a clunky mechanic. The problem requires a solution, but this is not the BEST solution.
.
Home System Clones - I...don't get why this is even a problem(?) I think the CD could be a little lower 40 days or something, but I don't get how this system is a problem at all.
.
Anyway, if you want to contribute to meaningful change, you should be balanced and rational in your criticisms, note problems you have with the systems and why, and when you have ideas, propose them. You also need to be constructive even with criticizing.
This is what I've attempted to do, at least. -shrug-
...now watch them completely disregard all that I've said, lol
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 16:26:21 -
[3886] - Quote
Thinking a bit more about how this is going to work, I'm not sure this is going to make room for new entities in null.
Probably the standard unit of sovereignity is going to be the constellation, inhabited by a corporation.
If you are small, you will only have one developed system, while trying to proyect enough force over the rest of the constelation, to avoid uncomfortable neigbours and to be able to have some control during the nodes battle.
But if your organization is large enough, you will probably develop the whole constelation, while projecting force over the neighbouring ones to keep a defensive buffer.
So, I expect a big alliance like Brave taking control of around 35 constellations, with 400 people in each one, while keeping empty constellations between them, say another one. So they will efectively control/negate to others, something like 70 constellations.
The Goons now have sovereignity in 38 different constellations, so I dont think they will need to reduce their footmark, only reduce a little the number of system where they have sovereignity.
And the renters will just live in the empty systems, so they can be protected of attacking fleets and just send one member at the end of the carnage to flip the nodes.
The new rules will provide a lot more good fights, but the players will be the same. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6619
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 17:44:17 -
[3887] - Quote
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Thinking a bit more about how this is going to work, I'm not sure this is going to make room for new entities in null.
Probably the standard unit of sovereignity is going to be the constellation, inhabited by a corporation.
If you are small, you will only have one developed system, while trying to proyect enough force over the rest of the constelation, to avoid uncomfortable neigbours and to be able to have some control during the nodes battle.
But if your organization is large enough, you will probably develop the whole constelation, while projecting force over the neighbouring ones to keep a defensive buffer.
So, I expect a big alliance like Brave taking control of around 35 constellations, with 400 people in each one, while keeping empty constellations between them, say another one. So they will efectively control/negate to others, something like 70 constellations.
The Goons now have sovereignity in 38 different constellations, so I dont think they will need to reduce their footmark, only reduce a little the number of system where they have sovereignity.
And the renters will just live in the empty systems, so they can be protected of attacking fleets and just send one member at the end of the carnage to flip the nodes.
The new rules will provide a lot more good fights, but the players will be the same. But at least a bunch of random systems will be taken by sov trolls and then flipped back or whatever, making a lot of sov changes show up on the sov map
so op success. Not like it did anythung, but hey sov was "shaken up", so op success.
Apparently fatigue led to more gate jumps, so that also was a success
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
90
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 17:44:35 -
[3888] - Quote
Rena'Thras wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Rena'Thras wrote:Another note on the vulnerability window:
A friend of mine put it very elegantly - This completely destroys the concept of a sandbox more than any other single change in the history of Eve.
.
At first I disputed his claim...but then I found I couldn't actually think of any other anti-sandbox change in Eve of this magnitude, and had to submit that he's right. I tend to dislike hyperbole, but I had to concede the point.
This change directly prevents sandbox/chaos theory random events from happening because it places an artificial, hard coded (to the mechanics set) rule that prevents interactions from occurring. That is, in the absence of it, Sov interactions can occur at any time and place - hence the sandbox. But once implemented, it presents an (more) artificial wall in the sandbox, a gatekeeper, saying you can only play with this part of the sandbox between the hours of 1400 and 1800.
.
So while my initial opposition to it was based on lore reasons (my forementioned "wtf" factor), I now also oppose it on the grounds of it being yet another policeman in the sandbox directing the children at play.
Considering that's one of the three major draws of Eve (space game, sandbox/shared universe, geopolitics), that's very unfortunate. It's one of the main things that gives Eve its appeal! Not a good thing to take away. Just another to add to the ever growing list of limitations placed on the "sandbox" nature of Eve. Jump range nerfs Fatigue Home System Clones and the biggest nerf ever introduced to Eve CCP Fozzie No see, I'm trying to offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Honestly, I have no major issues with those changes you listed. Jump Range Nerfs - were necessary. IRL, the USA can't teleport their Carrier strike groups around the planet at a moment's notice. They have to prestige, pick what areas they think are most in need of the assets on, potentially, the shortest time scales (where will they need them in situations where they don't have days to wait for them to get on station), based, supply lines, etc. The fact that we're seeing more small scale engagements, use of Dreads, and more overall activity in several parts of Null that were previously within range of being hot dropped. So this change I would chalk up as good. . Fatigue - is kind of like the vulnerability window. That is, a problem that requires a solution, but this is a clunky and awkward solution. As people have said, the fatigue should've on the ship not the pilot, though that would be more difficult to code. Likewise, it should not effect sub spa traveling through bridges. And it causes a similar problem to Raid lockouts in fantasy MMOs where you have players having to coordinate their timers as well as their online time. Again, a clunky mechanic. The problem requires a solution, but this is not the BEST solution. . Home System Clones - I...don't get why this is even a problem(?) I think the CD could be a little lower 40 days or something, but I don't get how this system is a problem at all. . Anyway, if you want to contribute to meaningful change, you should be balanced and rational in your criticisms, note problems you have with the systems and why, and when you have ideas, propose them. You also need to be constructive even with criticizing. This is what I've attempted to do, at least. -shrug- ...now watch them completely disregard all that I've said, lol The US does not need to teleport their carriers anywhere you forget about the long range strike packages the SUPERS offer. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6619
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 18:00:26 -
[3889] - Quote
icbms still take a while to destroy the hell out of the other guys
Where did our remote aoe doomsdays go again
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
458
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 19:05:57 -
[3890] - Quote
kk guys, once you get past the highly speculative trollceptor rabblerabble and timezone range, you'll realize just how amazing the actual command node capture event is. The constellation spread and node dynamics open up opportunities for a much more varied landscape of tactics, leading to days of high-octane PVP fun.
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
866
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 20:20:53 -
[3891] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:kk guys, once you get past the highly speculative trollceptor rabblerabble and timezone range, you'll realize just how amazing the actual command node capture event is not. The constellation spread and node dynamics open up opportunities for a much more varied landscape of weaponized boredom and frustration leading to new levels of self-induced stagnation and soul-destroying misery.
FYP.
Those who cannot currently organize themselves enough to hold space in Eve under existing mechanics will be no more successful in the new system.
War is a contest of two opposing wills and the side who gives in first loses. That doesn't make for a very good game, but that is how it has played out in Eve for as long as I have been playing it. Opponents are very rarely beaten physically - i.e. to the point where they have no more ships to fly or territory to contest. They are almost always beaten psychologically long before they reach that point. Only a few organizations have the morale to fight to the last ship - most will give up or failure cascade as people try to save their remaining valuables (people start jumping out carriers with expensive ratting ships, mining ships, and all the other things they need to start again some place new).
Weeks of AFK camping, followed by a few rounds of troll pinging, followed by an overwhelming assault once you have crushed the opponents' morale and desire to log in will still be the best way to capture space. That doesn't make for a very fun game, so most of the time, it is in everyone's best interest not to engage in massive sovereignty fights between the great powers.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 21:02:12 -
[3892] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Opponents are very rarely beaten physically - i.e. to the point where they have no more ships to fly or territory to contest. ...most will give up or failure cascade long before that point. Dont you think that this point makes the whole sov revamp if not useless, but at least very dubious? The main goal was, and I quote: "Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved" The experience shows - sov defenders dont want good fights. They want sov at all costs. And that means they will take any opportunity to ruin the game of their opponents. Attackers of course will return the favor.
So if the whole premise is wrong - then what the hell are we discussing? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6620
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 21:50:05 -
[3893] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Opponents are very rarely beaten physically - i.e. to the point where they have no more ships to fly or territory to contest. ...most will give up or failure cascade long before that point. Dont you think that this point makes the whole sov revamp if not useless, but at least very dubious? The main goal was, and I quote: "Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved" The experience shows - sov defenders dont want good fights. They want sov at all costs. And that means they will take any opportunity to ruin the game of their opponents. Attackers of course will return the favor. So if the whole premise is wrong - then what the hell are we discussing? You can't really win as the other side can regroup etc... if anothing else, groups have gone to npc null (or even highsec?) and then returned... with varying successes, of course. The only real way to remove someone as a threat is to make them not play anymore.
The goal, ironically, is dead against the optimal strategy for most eve conflicts. (You don't even really need threatening enemies, anyone will do for farming "content"). Is it achieveable? Perhaps.
But CCP all all groups trying to force us to have fun and being successful... ahh well you can see we're already figuring out the best ways to adapt the new landscape to carry out the optimal strategy.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6620
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 21:51:46 -
[3894] - Quote
Despite what people think, winning is less of overblown "take over all of null" but more like "no serious threats left & endless farming of content".
One may change the nature of threats (by removing them via bore offs), but it's probably easier to change the nature of content (which in some places, sov trolling is content so you can do both at once)
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
370
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 22:38:01 -
[3895] - Quote
HarlyQ wrote:Rena'Thras wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Rena'Thras wrote:Another note on the vulnerability window:
A friend of mine put it very elegantly - This completely destroys the concept of a sandbox more than any other single change in the history of Eve.
.
At first I disputed his claim...but then I found I couldn't actually think of any other anti-sandbox change in Eve of this magnitude, and had to submit that he's right. I tend to dislike hyperbole, but I had to concede the point.
This change directly prevents sandbox/chaos theory random events from happening because it places an artificial, hard coded (to the mechanics set) rule that prevents interactions from occurring. That is, in the absence of it, Sov interactions can occur at any time and place - hence the sandbox. But once implemented, it presents an (more) artificial wall in the sandbox, a gatekeeper, saying you can only play with this part of the sandbox between the hours of 1400 and 1800.
.
So while my initial opposition to it was based on lore reasons (my forementioned "wtf" factor), I now also oppose it on the grounds of it being yet another policeman in the sandbox directing the children at play.
Considering that's one of the three major draws of Eve (space game, sandbox/shared universe, geopolitics), that's very unfortunate. It's one of the main things that gives Eve its appeal! Not a good thing to take away. Just another to add to the ever growing list of limitations placed on the "sandbox" nature of Eve. Jump range nerfs Fatigue Home System Clones and the biggest nerf ever introduced to Eve CCP Fozzie No see, I'm trying to offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Honestly, I have no major issues with those changes you listed. Jump Range Nerfs - were necessary. IRL, the USA can't teleport their Carrier strike groups around the planet at a moment's notice. They have to prestige, pick what areas they think are most in need of the assets on, potentially, the shortest time scales (where will they need them in situations where they don't have days to wait for them to get on station), based, supply lines, etc. The fact that we're seeing more small scale engagements, use of Dreads, and more overall activity in several parts of Null that were previously within range of being hot dropped. So this change I would chalk up as good. . Fatigue - is kind of like the vulnerability window. That is, a problem that requires a solution, but this is a clunky and awkward solution. As people have said, the fatigue should've on the ship not the pilot, though that would be more difficult to code. Likewise, it should not effect sub spa traveling through bridges. And it causes a similar problem to Raid lockouts in fantasy MMOs where you have players having to coordinate their timers as well as their online time. Again, a clunky mechanic. The problem requires a solution, but this is not the BEST solution. . Home System Clones - I...don't get why this is even a problem(?) I think the CD could be a little lower 40 days or something, but I don't get how this system is a problem at all. . Anyway, if you want to contribute to meaningful change, you should be balanced and rational in your criticisms, note problems you have with the systems and why, and when you have ideas, propose them. You also need to be constructive even with criticizing. This is what I've attempted to do, at least. -shrug- ...now watch them completely disregard all that I've said, lol The US does not need to teleport their carriers anywhere you forget about the long range strike packages the SUPERS offer. Rena; I have made suggestions and posted my opinions, since about page 6 of this thread. Posting the same thing over and over gets tiresome so I added to your post without adding my ideas for decent change AGAIN. The things I added are all limiting players ability to play the game in one way or another, some more than others.
NB: You do know how "home system clones" work, don't you? You lose sov - you have 1 of 2 choices, join the corp who now owns sov or move your clone to highsec "for a year".
These new mini games combined with other recent changes are going to succeed in 1 thing only - Large tracts of vacant sov. Really no point taking sov in, for example, Delve, if your "home clone" is in Branch for the next 9 months
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Aurumfault Shiptoaster
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 00:01:08 -
[3896] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
NB: You do know how "home system clones" work, don't you? You lose sov - you have 1 of 2 choices, join the corp who now owns sov or move your clone to highsec "for a year".
These new mini games combined with other recent changes are going to succeed in 1 thing only - Large tracts of vacant sov. Really no point taking sov in, for example, Delve, if your "home clone" is in Branch for the next 9 months
Or set your home clone in Delve by docking there? The 1/year restriction is only for remotely setting a clone. Am I missing something?
Large tracts of vacant sov does seem like a possibility, but not for this reason.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
370
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 01:28:14 -
[3897] - Quote
Aurumfault Shiptoaster wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
NB: You do know how "home system clones" work, don't you? You lose sov - you have 1 of 2 choices, join the corp who now owns sov or move your clone to highsec "for a year".
These new mini games combined with other recent changes are going to succeed in 1 thing only - Large tracts of vacant sov. Really no point taking sov in, for example, Delve, if your "home clone" is in Branch for the next 9 months
Or set your home clone in Delve by docking there? The 1/year restriction is only for remotely setting a clone. Am I missing something? Large tracts of vacant sov does seem like a possibility, but not for this reason. Your right, my bad. It has been a while since I moved a clone.
My position on large tracts of valueless, hence empty, sov remains.
The only good thing to come out of the proposed changes so far is; CCP has acknowledged there is a need for change. The stated goals are good but everything else needs to be thrown out and start over.
My suggestion would be to scrap the mini game concept (Sov War is not FW). Grinding an ihub is something many like to do, just not with a minimum requirement of 1,000 in fleet. (reduce overall EHP on major structures) Timers are important but need to be shorter, say a maximum of 36 hours instead of 48 (Prime Time is not the answer)
Sov needs to be worth taking and holding and not just for the big alliances who own moons etc. All vacant sov should be set to 0.1 and only improve to true sec via actions taken whilst sov is held. This is then tied to defensive capabilities. Improving True sec, can only be achieved by the alliance who holds sov. So bringing in 2,000 allies to get sec down is not an option as anything they do does not count toward true sec.
Newly taken sov needs to have a cooldown of at least 7 days to allow the alliance that has taken it to get some sort of defensive capability into the ihub. Players can be attacked but structures remain invulnerable for the 1st 7 days. If CCP is serious about unaligned smaller alliances being able to take and hold sov, it needs to be system based not constellation.
Entosis link (could be good if introduced correctly) T1 - Battle Cruiser and Carrier T2 - Command Ship and Super.
If you really want the Entosis link to be a conflict driver, make it operate like a Bastion module, 1 min cycle time, immobilizes the ship while it is active and adds the same defensive capabilities as per the Bastion module. (no remote assistance)
Income earning in Sov.,. It needs to be a relatively hard place to survive and if sec status is tied to sov ownership, your earning potential increases the more you use your sov.
Taking sov should be a meaningful thing. Planting your flag is only the beginning of the journey.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
870
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 02:37:38 -
[3898] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Opponents are very rarely beaten physically - i.e. to the point where they have no more ships to fly or territory to contest. ...most will give up or failure cascade long before that point. Dont you think that this point makes the whole sov revamp if not useless, but at least very dubious? The main goal was, and I quote: "Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved" The experience shows - sov defenders dont want good fights. They want sov at all costs. And that means they will take any opportunity to ruin the game of their opponents. Attackers of course will return the favor. So if the whole premise is wrong - then what the hell are we discussing?
This may not be the most popular opinion, but yes, I think the whole premise is wrong.
Holding 0.0 space should be a lot more than sitting on a tether waiting to play whack-a-mole. A lot goes into running a successful space empire. I need not elaborate on that here, as everyone who knows anything about it is already familiar with the amount of work required. As such, it should not be easy to take away that space. It should require a reasonable effort to take the space. I do not believe Trollsov really requires a reasonable effort to take space. This will ultimately mean that owning space becomes even more the exclusive club of those who can do so despite the system being unbalanced in favor of the offense.
Faction Warfare does not represent real loss or gain - whether your side wins or loses, the map will not change. Both sides will make a great deal of ISK just by participating in Faction Warfare. Players will flip-flop back and forth just to make more ISK. It is therefore an invalid model for sovereign 0.0 space, which is about long term commitment to a group and making long term investments in space.
Sovereign 0.0 space should not flip-flop back and forth. Major warfare should be a serious commitment. The normal mode in 0.0 should be constant border raiding, but not constant existential threats.
The fundamental problem with Eve right now is Supercapitals. The ability to build Supercapitals is one of the only benefits to owning 0.0 space. Everything else you can do in 0.0 can be done somewhere else with less trouble and less risk.
The problem is, of course, that Supercapitals can only be built in sovereign 0.0 space. Since building them requires space ownership, the sov system should not require them to take and hold space. That needs to change. The solution is not to let them be built in low sec or NPC 0.0. If that happened, that is the only place people would build them, for a variety of reasons.
So, it is clear that Supercapitals need to go. Making them useless, giant command ships, as CCP Fozzie has suggested, is not the path to take. At best, make Supercarriers into slightly more powerful Carriers (Carriers carry Fighters, Supercarriers carry more Fighters and get Fighterbombers, neither gets drones, but I digress). That would revitalize lots of old accounts who are otherwise in a stasis situation of "break glass in case of war." At worse, remove them completely and reimburse all the things.
The only other benefit to holding 0.0 space is that you can build your own sandcastle. It won't look much different than all the other sandcastles, but it will be yours. And it takes a tremendous amount of work to build it and maintain it.
Without Supercapital dominance, it takes a great deal of effort to take and defend 0.0 space. This is fine, so long as the attack and defense are balanced, and successful offense means risking valuable things in space, then things will be good.
CCP should be looking at why and how people live in Sovereign 0.0 space. I don't think they have really done their homework on this one (if they have, they sure have not showed their work). They do not seem to understand how much work goes in to living there. Clearly, it may not be as much effort as living in a WH, but the amount of people who have stuff at risk is far higher. And the ease of moving in an eviction force is much easier in Sovereign 0.0 space than it is in a WH.
I think CCP should accept, as a premise, that capital fleets are a PART of the basic requirements for taking and holding 0.0 space. They should rebalance sovereign space 0.0 around the idea that strong capital fleets are a requirement for successful offense and defense.
The other thing they need to do is balance out the map some. The east needs some NPC 0.0. This would be good for both offense, as a staging area to attack the space, and for defense, as a place to evacuate to if you lose. It would also be good for the day-to-day risk, as it gives a good staging base for the kinds of local raids that keep day-to-day life vibrant in the West.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
335
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 04:45:01 -
[3899] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote: Those who cannot currently organize themselves enough to hold space in Eve under existing mechanics will be no more successful in the new system.
War is a contest of two opposing wills and the side who gives in first loses. That doesn't make for a very good game, but that is how it has played out in Eve for as long as I have been playing it. Opponents are very rarely beaten physically - i.e. to the point where they have no more ships to fly or territory to contest. They are almost always beaten psychologically long before they reach that point. Only a few organizations have the morale to fight to the last ship - most will give up or failure cascade long before that point.
Weeks of AFK camping, followed by a few rounds of troll pinging, followed by an overwhelming assault once you have crushed the opponents' morale and desire to log in will still be the best way to capture space. That doesn't make for a very fun game, so most of the time, it is in everyone's best interest not to engage in massive sovereignty fights between the great powers.
In my experience the current system is not really anymore about will at its core but about having a critical supercapital mass. You can be willing to fight tooth and nail for your sov but under the current system if you do not have the supercapital blanket there is little you can do about it.
A entity with sufficient number of supercaps can hold an empty system currently by doing about 4 ops a month (final timers) for keeping it.
A new system is better in that regard. A smallish entity willing to fight for its space has a possibility of clinging into a system or two as actually keeping these systems would require a daily presence from the contestant. A large supercapital heavy entity still has an option to nuke the POS towers when ever feeling like it.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6636
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 05:07:52 -
[3900] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:In my experience the current system is not really anymore about will at its core but about having a critical supercapital mass. You can be willing to fight tooth and nail for your sov but under the current system if you do not have the supercapital blanket there is little you can do about it.
A entity with sufficient number of supercaps can hold an empty system currently by doing about 4 ops a month (final timers) for keeping it.
A new system is better in that regard. A smallish entity willing to fight for its space has a possibility of clinging into a system or two as actually keeping these systems would require a daily presence from the contestant. A large supercapital heavy entity still has an option to nuke the POS towers when ever feeling like it.
And thus, when you have the sov lasers, sov will be more than just an option on the table for moa, right? I mean you are willing to fight tooth and nail, but aaah supercap what can we do?!?! Thankfully the NPCs in your home station won't lose it or deny you access even though there's some sort of hilarious camp just outside the station.
That endless optimism, it can only come from massadeath
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6636
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 05:12:47 -
[3901] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:I think CCP should accept, as a premise, that capital fleets are a PART of the basic requirements for taking and holding 0.0 space. They should rebalance sovereign space 0.0 around the idea that strong capital fleets are a requirement for successful offense and defense. This would be relevant before we got tons of caps** and supercaps***, now it's all about how can people with them be ended.
** see: wreckingball theory of carrier use (before a certain massive supercap battle)
*** see: isk-on-field theory of supercap battles (before a certain massive supercap battle)
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 06:00:27 -
[3902] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:FT Diomedes wrote: Those who cannot currently organize themselves enough to hold space in Eve under existing mechanics will be no more successful in the new system.
War is a contest of two opposing wills and the side who gives in first loses. That doesn't make for a very good game, but that is how it has played out in Eve for as long as I have been playing it. Opponents are very rarely beaten physically - i.e. to the point where they have no more ships to fly or territory to contest. They are almost always beaten psychologically long before they reach that point. Only a few organizations have the morale to fight to the last ship - most will give up or failure cascade long before that point.
Weeks of AFK camping, followed by a few rounds of troll pinging, followed by an overwhelming assault once you have crushed the opponents' morale and desire to log in will still be the best way to capture space. That doesn't make for a very fun game, so most of the time, it is in everyone's best interest not to engage in massive sovereignty fights between the great powers.
In my experience the current system is not really anymore about will at its core but about having a critical supercapital mass. You can be willing to fight tooth and nail for your sov but under the current system if you do not have the supercapital blanket there is little you can do about it. A entity with sufficient number of supercaps can hold an empty system currently by doing about 4 ops a month (final timers) for keeping it. A new system is better in that regard. A smallish entity willing to fight for its space has a possibility of clinging into a system or two as actually keeping these systems would require a daily presence from the contestant. A large supercapital heavy entity still has an option to nuke the POS towers when ever feeling like it. I wonder how long it will take you to notice how the NEW system really works or I should say will work. |
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 06:02:08 -
[3903] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:ICBMs still take a while to destroy the hell out of the other guys
Where did our remote aoe doomsdays go again I was referring to the 2 billion space wing that we have like 100 of :) |
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 07:02:32 -
[3904] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:
War is a contest of two opposing wills and the side who gives in first loses. That doesn't make for a very good game, but that is how it has played out in Eve for as long as I have been playing it. Opponents are very rarely beaten physically - i.e. to the point where they have no more ships to fly or territory to contest. They are almost always beaten psychologically long before they reach that point. Only a few organizations have the morale to fight to the last ship - most will give up or failure cascade long before that point.
Weeks of AFK camping, followed by a few rounds of troll pinging, followed by an overwhelming assault once you have crushed the opponents' morale and desire to log in will still be the best way to capture space. That doesn't make for a very fun game, so most of the time, it is in everyone's best interest not to engage in massive sovereignty fights between the great powers.
I agree, there will be no fights to defend sov. It is not worth it. It will be easy to deny others to take sov on the other hand, and many will try but fail and burn-out in the process.
The new Entosis-based sov-mechanics will make even the most well-organized entity burn-out rather quickly if they try to defend it. Since sov is not worth much (anything) for the large well-organized entties, why should they fight over sov? At least they won't fight to keep sov, just to take/destroy others sov.
There has to be a really strong incitament for large well-organized entities to wage war for sov, otherwise sov will be very rare - those who try to take it will have it ripped from them rather easily.
I on my part am looking forward to this, there will be much fun in taking away sov for those who try to hold it. But i guess CCP will have to iterate a lot on this until there is a good balance between the value of owning sov and the simpleness of taking it away or denying it to others.
So lets play that game for a while then, and have a lot of fun doing it! Game of denial is on!
CEO Svea Rike
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
335
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 07:43:56 -
[3905] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote: And thus, when you have the sov lasers, sov will be more than just an option on the table for moa, right? I mean you are willing to fight tooth and nail, but aaah supercap what can we do?!?! Thankfully the NPCs in your home station won't lose it or deny you access even though there's some sort of hilarious camp just outside the station.
That endless optimism, it can only come from massadeath
Show on the doll where did Massadeath touch you ;)
On a more serious note I'm not sure from where are you getting a note that MOA has plans to claim sov, put up IHUB and start farming "fighting tooth and nail" against Goons or whoever else ends up holding Pure Blind. Mordus Angels are more like low sec pirate entity than a sov holding alliance. All fun and pewpew instead of regular mandatory CTA's and/or alarmclock ops. Not right "attitude" to hold sov long term.
Yeah we will probably end up with sov from time to time whenever your block decides to be busy elsewhere with something but meh, easy comes easy goes.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 09:04:06 -
[3906] - Quote
There was a question about why people playing in certain aereas of space.
Highsec: You don't need to play together at all.
Nullsec: You need to play together in many ways but don't need to be online all the time and can do many things alone.
Wormhole: Only able to play if your corpmembers are online aswell.
Lowsec: Event style playing, often together. The reason why many pirates living there.
After the proposed sov changes nullsec playstyle might not change that much except one thing: Either you are online every day or your corp has something like your phone number and you can go online within less than 12-42 minutes if the batphone calls. You doing something for your corp that is worth keeping you as member.
If you can't fullfill this you have just two options: First choice for carebears will be highsec but they will retire because lack of group playstyle. Join a big enough alli that can afford a certain amount of leisure player but they might control your playstyle soon.
If you are online on a regularly basis you might aswell go into a wormhole system without the disadvantages of the new nullsec sov at least if local changes go live.
Where will be the room for leisure players that like to play together?
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
874
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 11:15:04 -
[3907] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:
If you are online on a regularly basis you might aswell go into a wormhole system without the disadvantages of the new nullsec sov at least if local changes go live.
I agree with this, to a certain extent. As I have been thinking about it the last few days, it has occurred to me that Wormhole Space is simply Pre-Dominion sovereign space. You claim your space with towers and the defender has to make a serious effort to evict you. And, what are the horribly unbalanced things that are not allowed in Wormholes? Supercapitals...
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
374
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 11:56:42 -
[3908] - Quote
After thinking on this subject a little more, CCP should introduce the new sov system exactly as they have outlined
New sov mechanics will mean only fools and members of large coalitions will actually try to make a home in sov nul.
So not too far into the future, you end up with 3 major sov holders who after a short period of too and fro will no longer fight each other because each has too much to lose. Why have a war where you could lose as much as the guys your fighting, true empire builders won't risk it all fighting someone who may beat them.
Their biggest threat will come from npc nul and the odd group of day trippers that venture into sov nul. So no threat at all really to their sov and due to member boredom the bloks will be doing all their real pvp in lowsec (so much the same as things are now)
Win Win - The Empire builders get to keep their empires and CCP gets to claim to have fixed the issues surrounding sov.
The undesirable systems in sov nul will stay unclaimed. Except for, as someone has already stated, the odd crappy system turned into a sov holding just to get a few fights while it is being lost.
Anyone else can either move out of sov nul (pirating sounds like fun) or join one of the power bloks.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 13:09:18 -
[3909] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:As the change decouples different sov structures form each other - why dont we have different capture mechanics for each of them? 1. I suggest the TCU should be captured in sort of a style used currently. Plant SBUs, wait 3 hours, then reinforce TCU in shield, then in armor, etc. A lot of people love blob warfare. And it's a selling point of EVE. 2. IHUBs can be captured with Entosis Link, alright. 3. Stations - let's be creative here. Do you remember the " Null Deal"? One of its points was to install NPC stations everywhere. What if instead, I could dock at sov stations? Let's say the alliance could anchor a structure called "auxiliary docking service" which costs like ~100 mil ISK and has ~1 mil EHP. As long as my alliance has auxiliary docking service near a station - I can dock in it. Of course, sov owner can dock regardless, and their allies as well. Why would you make the ihub easier to capture than the TCU when it is the far more valuable and difficult to replace structure? I just want to see diversity. I want to see place for capital fights in new sov warfare. Swap construction costs and freighter requirements, whatever.
Yeah actually what might not be too terrible would be:
1. TCU can be RFed and then killed using Entosis link mechanic. If there is no TCU in system the station/ihub can be immediately attacked as outlined in point 2 below.
2. When the TCU is dead the station can be RFed using Entosis link mechanic into Freeport mode. The ihub retains the HP it has under current sov mechanics and can also be RFed into it's first timer.
Additional station timers use the Entosis link mechanic, additional ihub timers use HP grind mechanics.
Only one ihub can exist per system (you have to grind the old ihub before you can drop one and place upgrades).
This way you can shut off station services, Freeport stations, kill TCUs using the new mechanic but to kill someone's ihub/upgrades and make the space worthless requires some commitment and actually provides capitals/supers some role in fozziesov. It also gives the TCU some value and eliminates the troll killing of ihubs that will make sov worth even less than it is now. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
878
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 14:34:02 -
[3910] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:FT Diomedes wrote: Those who cannot currently organize themselves enough to hold space in Eve under existing mechanics will be no more successful in the new system.
War is a contest of two opposing wills and the side who gives in first loses. That doesn't make for a very good game, but that is how it has played out in Eve for as long as I have been playing it. Opponents are very rarely beaten physically - i.e. to the point where they have no more ships to fly or territory to contest. They are almost always beaten psychologically long before they reach that point. Only a few organizations have the morale to fight to the last ship - most will give up or failure cascade long before that point.
Weeks of AFK camping, followed by a few rounds of troll pinging, followed by an overwhelming assault once you have crushed the opponents' morale and desire to log in will still be the best way to capture space. That doesn't make for a very fun game, so most of the time, it is in everyone's best interest not to engage in massive sovereignty fights between the great powers.
In my experience the current system is not really anymore about will at its core but about having a critical supercapital mass. You can be willing to fight tooth and nail for your sov but under the current system if you do not have the supercapital blanket there is little you can do about it. A entity with sufficient number of supercaps can hold an empty system currently by doing about 4 ops a month (final timers) for keeping it. A new system is better in that regard. A smallish entity willing to fight for its space has a possibility of clinging into a system or two as actually keeping these systems would require a daily presence from the contestant. A large supercapital heavy entity still has an option to nuke the POS towers when ever feeling like it.
Warfare is always about will.
Clinging to a charred and fragmented chunk of rock - for no reason whatsoever - is very in keeping with some people's idea of nationalism and patriotism. Ultimately, if every time you try to build something in space, someone else comes through and burns it with 10% the effort you require to build and maintain it, you have to accept that you are insane.
I am not supporting the current Supercapital usage. They need to go (as I have said elsewhere). An alliance that loses space should be able to retreat into other Sovereign Space, NPC 0.0, or low sec to regroup. Regrouping means moving to a position where they can rebuild the tools needed to reclaim Sovereign Space. So long as Supercapitals can only be produced in Sovereign Space, new groups have a huge barrier to entry. New groups should be able to stage in low sec or NPC 0.0, purchase or build the capital ships needed to make a serious effort to take and hold space, and get a foothold somewhere that is far enough from an opponents' core space that they have a chance of success. One thing that would help this more than anything is more NPC 0.0 in areas of the map that currently do not have any.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
508
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 14:37:03 -
[3911] - Quote
I would like to see more opportunity for using capitals in this system, even if it's not essential to do so.
What if Entosis Links could only deactivate an Infrastructure Hub, and you needed to shoot it or online your own to get rid of it permanently? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
878
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 15:06:00 -
[3912] - Quote
xttz wrote:I would like to see more opportunity for using capitals in this system, even if it's not essential to do so.
What if Entosis Links could only deactivate an Infrastructure Hub, and you needed to shoot it or online your own to get rid of it permanently?
At the very least, there should not be a penalty for committing capitals to the fight.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Kendarr
Zebra Corp The Bastion
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 18:15:24 -
[3913] - Quote
I like the changes. I am looking forward to new neighbours to shoot.
I do not like how useless capitals and super capitals are.
Also please give titans more bridge range, please. That would make me happy.
Zebra-Corp
|
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 21:09:00 -
[3914] - Quote
With everyone and their alt having supers... why not remove their immunities to all forms of ewar so they're just beefier carriers instead of untouchables.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6648
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 23:24:59 -
[3915] - Quote
Shodan Of Citadel wrote:With everyone and their alt having supers... why not remove their immunities to all forms of ewar so they're just beefier carriers instead of untouchables. That would be nice...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
884
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 23:58:14 -
[3916] - Quote
Shodan Of Citadel wrote:With everyone and their alt having supers... why not remove their immunities to all forms of ewar so they're just beefier carriers instead of untouchables.
This would be great. I would also reduce their hitpoints quite a bit as well.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
374
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 07:14:24 -
[3917] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Shodan Of Citadel wrote:With everyone and their alt having supers... why not remove their immunities to all forms of ewar so they're just beefier carriers instead of untouchables.
This would be great. I would also reduce their hitpoints quite a bit as well. Why is it people seem to be fixated on the strengths of capitals? How about some of the drawbacks to owning capitals, especially supers. Capital warfare has all but been removed from the game, now you want to whine because those who choose to use them in their new limited capacity are too hard to kill for you and your 5 buddies in subcaps.
If you want to kill capitals and especially supers, spend the time and money and do it the way everyone else has had to. Buy your bloody own!!! Eve is about players overcoming not CCP nerfing to make it easier for the whiners.
All the nerfs are slowly killing any real content in eve and you guys just keep screaming for more.
- - - - - - - - - Just get it over with, remove all capitals from the game, refund SP and isk spent and let eve die the slow death it has coming. And by capitals, I mean ALL capitals, freighters, bowheads, rorquals all need to go. We don't want someone having an advantage over anyone else so all need to go to create the level playing field people are crying for. While your at it; Covert cloaks also need to be removed as does bubble immunity for interceptors and the combat recons need to be scannable again. These create an unfair advantage over those who don't use them so they must be bad and need to be removed.
I used to say I fear for the future of eve - No need for that - As long as these attitudes prevail, eve has no future.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Bellak Hark
New Eden Media Organization
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 09:48:40 -
[3918] - Quote
Thought I would ask some goon friends what they thought about the changes, here you go.
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 14:36:55 -
[3919] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:
I am not supporting the current Supercapital usage. They need to go (as I have said elsewhere). An alliance that loses space should be able to retreat into other Sovereign Space, NPC 0.0, or low sec to regroup. Regrouping means moving to a position where they can rebuild the tools needed to reclaim Sovereign Space. So long as Supercapitals can only be produced in Sovereign Space, new groups have a huge barrier to entry. New groups should be able to stage in low sec or NPC 0.0, purchase or build the capital ships needed to make a serious effort to take and hold space, and get a foothold somewhere that is far enough from an opponents' core space that they have a chance of success. One thing that would help this more than anything is more NPC 0.0 in areas of the map that currently do not have any.
More NPC space, but this should be added near current low sec / high sec. Else no new entity will be able to settle there. So no need to add NPC space in deep null. But how will this fix the supercapital problem? You can still not buid your own supers so you can't engage the other entities?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6650
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 19:50:19 -
[3920] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:
I am not supporting the current Supercapital usage. They need to go (as I have said elsewhere). An alliance that loses space should be able to retreat into other Sovereign Space, NPC 0.0, or low sec to regroup. Regrouping means moving to a position where they can rebuild the tools needed to reclaim Sovereign Space. So long as Supercapitals can only be produced in Sovereign Space, new groups have a huge barrier to entry. New groups should be able to stage in low sec or NPC 0.0, purchase or build the capital ships needed to make a serious effort to take and hold space, and get a foothold somewhere that is far enough from an opponents' core space that they have a chance of success. One thing that would help this more than anything is more NPC 0.0 in areas of the map that currently do not have any.
More NPC space, but this should be added near current low sec / high sec. Else no new entity will be able to settle there. So no need to add NPC space in deep null. But how will this fix the supercapital problem? You can still not buid your own supers so you can't engage the other entities? Are you still worried about that?
In the other thread your hero massadeath was convinced that sov lasers are all it will take to end our 00.0 nightmare...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
886
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 19:56:18 -
[3921] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:
I am not supporting the current Supercapital usage. They need to go (as I have said elsewhere). An alliance that loses space should be able to retreat into other Sovereign Space, NPC 0.0, or low sec to regroup. Regrouping means moving to a position where they can rebuild the tools needed to reclaim Sovereign Space. So long as Supercapitals can only be produced in Sovereign Space, new groups have a huge barrier to entry. New groups should be able to stage in low sec or NPC 0.0, purchase or build the capital ships needed to make a serious effort to take and hold space, and get a foothold somewhere that is far enough from an opponents' core space that they have a chance of success. One thing that would help this more than anything is more NPC 0.0 in areas of the map that currently do not have any.
More NPC space, but this should be added near current low sec / high sec. Else no new entity will be able to settle there. So no need to add NPC space in deep null. But how will this fix the supercapital problem? You can still not buid your own supers so you can't engage the other entities?
NPC space in deep nullsec helps make it less safe and secure, since it gives a place for small alliances to stage for raids into sov space (as MOA, EH, and Pizza/Pasta have done for years. It also helps with logistics.
I currently have four characters skilled for Supercarriers and two for Titans. I also own a couple of Titans. With that as my background, I think they need to be seriously nerfed to the point where they are a cool, bling factor in a fight, rather than a true APEX force.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Telizane
Sleepless Guardians
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 04:27:36 -
[3922] - Quote
Dear Eve Developers (Or the ones who came up with prime time)
I play with people from over the pond, down under and a few from the far east.... (I'm in the US) and these are some of the best people in the game that I have come to know and fly with for many years.
This idea "APPEARS" to rule out the specific play times, or just times that mates will be online. I hope that this truly isn't the case because in all honesty you are going against one of the main reasons EVE is still relevant in the gaming community.
EVE "Online" which means that people from across the globe can be online at the same time and fly together, work together conquer the universe as a team ..."ONLINE".
If you start a system that segregates time zones, where the games you compete with don't...do the math.
I hope this will not be the case going forward, otherwise you are about to defaecate on the people we call friends.... |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2748
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 07:39:53 -
[3923] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:There was a question about why people playing in certain aereas of space.
Highsec: You don't need to play together at all.
Nullsec: You need to play together in many ways but don't need to be online all the time and can do many things alone.
Wormhole: Only able to play if your corpmembers are online aswell.
Lowsec: Event style playing, often together. The reason why many pirates living there.
After the proposed sov changes nullsec playstyle might not change that much except one thing: Either you are online every day or your corp has something like your phone number and you can go online within less than 12-42 minutes if the batphone calls. You doing something for your corp that is worth keeping you as member.
If you can't fullfill this you have just two options: First choice for carebears will be highsec but they will retire because lack of group playstyle. Join a big enough alli that can afford a certain amount of leisure player but they might control your playstyle soon.
If you are online on a regularly basis you might aswell go into a wormhole system without the disadvantages of the new nullsec sov at least if local changes go live.
Where will be the room for leisure players that like to play together?
Edit: After posting i realized that there is in fact a room for that playstyle, commonly known as pirate playstyle. This leads to the next question. From where shall we get the targets if all that are leisure player and like to play in groups became pirates?
Don't worry , you guys won't become pirates.Pirates tend to also pick solo fights , are not too scared for losses and don't have SRP.
Nope , if there is one thing i am not worried about is that a lot of null-sec guys become pirates.Now empire gankers sure , but then a lot of the null-sec guys are allready doing this on an alt.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 09:58:08 -
[3924] - Quote
flakeys wrote:Don't worry , you guys won't become pirates.Pirates tend to also pick solo fights , are not too scared for losses and don't have SRP.
Nope , if there is one thing i am not worried about is that a lot of null-sec guys become pirates.Now empire gankers sure , but then a lot of the null-sec guys are allready doing this on an alt.
Well, we already have our Pirate alts.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
886
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 11:56:51 -
[3925] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:flakeys wrote:Don't worry , you guys won't become pirates.Pirates tend to also pick solo fights , are not too scared for losses and don't have SRP.
Nope , if there is one thing i am not worried about is that a lot of null-sec guys become pirates.Now empire gankers sure , but then a lot of the null-sec guys are allready doing this on an alt. Well, we already have our Pirate alts.
And like all good "solo" PVPers, our pirate alts have each have their off grid boosting alts and our Falcon alts.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
769
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 13:26:11 -
[3926] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:flakeys wrote:Don't worry , you guys won't become pirates.Pirates tend to also pick solo fights , are not too scared for losses and don't have SRP.
Nope , if there is one thing i am not worried about is that a lot of null-sec guys become pirates.Now empire gankers sure , but then a lot of the null-sec guys are allready doing this on an alt. Well, we already have our Pirate alts. And like all good "solo" PVPers, our pirate alts have each have their off grid boosting alts and our Falcon alts. No no no, only one name shows up on the killmail therefore he's "solo."
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves."
The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1176
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 17:25:19 -
[3927] - Quote
Kendarr wrote:Also please give titans more bridge range, please. That would make me happy.
Hell, no! Instant teleportation is a broken gaming mechanic at all but the most restricted levels.
Sgt Ocker wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Shodan Of Citadel wrote:With everyone and their alt having supers... why not remove their immunities to all forms of ewar so they're just beefier carriers instead of untouchables.
This would be great. I would also reduce their hitpoints quite a bit as well. If you want to kill capitals and especially supers, spend the time and money and do it the way everyone else has had to. Buy your bloody own!!! Eve is about players overcoming not CCP nerfing to make it easier for the whiners. All the nerfs are slowly killing any real content in eve and you guys just keep screaming for more.
Ok, give me $140,000 USD for a fleet of 100 titans so I or any other alliance can defend sov vs PL. (Does not include cost of buying the pilot characters.) Wut? You don't have that kind of money? Scrub. Go live in npc space.
Go build them? Ok, give me enough sov space, minerals, and time to build them. Wut? You don't have sov? Go take some!
Can't take sov without supers/titans? Buy them! And... the circle is complete. The only way anyone takes sov without a super fleet nowadays is because the previous owners abandoned it.
On nerfs, supers and titans were broken the moment they were introduced into the game. This isn't about players overcoming players. This is about players overcoming really bad game mechanics that have reinforced the the positions of the top alliances to the point where they are impossible to defeat by anyone not fielding an n+1 apex force. And since you can't take space without the ships, and you can't get the ships without the space, everyone but the current owners are pretty much screwed.
As much as I would howl with delight is supers and titans were removed from the game, I give that a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening. Therefore many of us are asking for the next best thing; give us a chance to succeed, otherwise, why play the nul-sov game?
CCP recognizes that there are plenty of other games to play that don't include the words Eve Online in their title. If they want to keep their customers and attract new ones, they have to do something about nulsov. "Fozziesov" is step 2 of their answer. We'll have to see how it plays out.
I am very curious to see step 3.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 18:25:46 -
[3928] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:
On nerfs, supers and titans were broken the moment they were introduced into the game. This isn't about players overcoming players. This is about players overcoming really bad game mechanics that have reinforced the the positions of the top alliances to the point where they are impossible to defeat by anyone not fielding an n+1 apex force. And since you can't take space without the ships, and you can't get the ships without the space, everyone but the current owners are pretty much screwed.
This is not entirely true. Where are Atlas Alliance's Titans and Supers now? Where are those that belonged to BoB (and its decedents)? They didn't lose them all when they cascaded. They're scattered all over Eve now, because many of the people who owned them decided to save them rather than fight when it looked like a losing battle.
Titans and supers aren't the problem by themselves. The necessity of belonging to a coalition is, and the ability of a couple of coalitions to dominate the entire map, keeping the space they want and demanding rent for the space that they don't.
I think that this change will make renting, as it currently exists, a very difficult proposition. In the current model (especially before travel restrictions) is was easy to rent out space allowing your renters to deal with roaming gangs and only responding when a force capable of threatening sov rolled in. That won't really be possible anymore. You'll either have to actively defend your rental space or only rent to those who can defend it for you, and if they can defend it, they don't need you.
While the big coalitions exist, you are right, there will be nothing that a new entrant can do. They'll have to disband into smaller, more local entities that don't occupy as much of the available space. This change will knock out one reason for being that the coalitions have. If they can't hold and control a vast rental empire, they have less reason to exist.
Two more changes need to come, in my opinion:
- High value moons need to fall under the new sov system (iHub dependent). Moons in lowsec need to have an NPC tax applied that makes it less attractive for big coalitions to control them. This will knock out the other main reason for being that big coalitions have.
- System resources need to scale to their level of occupancy. Plexing and mining missions, instead of anoms, with an iHub upgrade that supplies offices for mission agents would probably be the easiest to implement. Systems with better trusec could have a better chance of high value drops from plexing missions, and better ore on mining missions. This would allow a good sized alliance to do well in a constellation or two, instead of needing an entire region, while allowing CCP the flexibility to control the size of the resource faucets, as necessary. The "prime time" window could grow if system density exceeds a certain level, to provide an incentive for alliances to try to claim more space if they outgrow what they have.
Titans and supers should continue to play a role that has value commensurate with their build costs, and the risk of fielding them. It needs to be adjusted so that they are force-multipliers, rather than an apex force by themselves. I think that super-carriers would be a natural logistics ship, fielding fighter-bomber sized logi drones while losing their fighters, thus becoming an anti-cap only ship, and titans could be the ultimate booster ships, boosting substantially more than a command ship. It would provide a reason to risk them, while making fielding them in great numbers less effective. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 18:50:46 -
[3929] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Soldarius wrote:
On nerfs, supers and titans were broken the moment they were introduced into the game. This isn't about players overcoming players. This is about players overcoming really bad game mechanics that have reinforced the the positions of the top alliances to the point where they are impossible to defeat by anyone not fielding an n+1 apex force. And since you can't take space without the ships, and you can't get the ships without the space, everyone but the current owners are pretty much screwed.
This is not entirely true. Where are Atlas Alliance's Titans and Supers now? Where are those that belonged to BoB (and its decedents)? They didn't lose them all when they cascaded. They're scattered all over Eve now, because many of the people who owned them decided to save them rather than fight when it looked like a losing battle. Titans and supers aren't the problem by themselves. The necessity of belonging to a coalition is, and the ability of a couple of coalitions to dominate the entire map, keeping the space they want and demanding rent for the space that they don't. I think that this change will make renting, as it currently exists, a very difficult proposition. In the current model (especially before travel restrictions) is was easy to rent out space allowing your renters to deal with roaming gangs and only responding when a force capable of threatening sov rolled in. That won't really be possible anymore. You'll either have to actively defend your rental space or only rent to those who can defend it for you, and if they can defend it, they don't need you. While the big coalitions exist, you are right, there will be nothing that a new entrant can do. They'll have to disband into smaller, more local entities that don't occupy as much of the available space. This change will knock out one reason for being that the coalitions have. If they can't hold and control a vast rental empire, they have less reason to exist. Two more changes need to come, in my opinion:
- High value moons need to fall under the new sov system (iHub dependent). Moons in lowsec need to have an NPC tax applied that makes it less attractive for big coalitions to control them. This will knock out the other main reason for being that big coalitions have.
- System resources need to scale to their level of occupancy. Plexing and mining missions, instead of anoms, with an iHub upgrade that supplies offices for mission agents would probably be the easiest to implement. Systems with better trusec could have a better chance of high value drops from plexing missions, and better ore on mining missions. This would allow a good sized alliance to do well in a constellation or two, instead of needing an entire region, while allowing CCP the flexibility to control the size of the resource faucets, as necessary. The "prime time" window could grow if system density exceeds a certain level, to provide an incentive for alliances to try to claim more space if they outgrow what they have.
Titans and supers should continue to play a role that has value commensurate with their build costs, and the risk of fielding them. It needs to be adjusted so that they are force-multipliers, rather than an apex force by themselves. I think that super-carriers would be a natural logistics ship, fielding fighter-bomber sized logi drones while losing their fighters, thus becoming an anti-cap only ship, and titans could be the ultimate booster ships, boosting substantially more than a command ship. It would provide a reason to risk them, while making fielding them in great numbers less effective. Edit: I'd also be OK with CCP simply pulling Titans and Supers from the game altogether, and reimbursing their owners for their costs at current market value, and the skill points that only apply to them. That would further open up the game for re-alignment while giving CCP a "clean slate" to reintroduce super-caps at a later time, if they chose.
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2748
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 19:38:18 -
[3930] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:flakeys wrote:Don't worry , you guys won't become pirates.Pirates tend to also pick solo fights , are not too scared for losses and don't have SRP.
Nope , if there is one thing i am not worried about is that a lot of null-sec guys become pirates.Now empire gankers sure , but then a lot of the null-sec guys are allready doing this on an alt. Well, we already have our Pirate alts. And like all good "solo" PVPers, our pirate alts have each have their off grid boosting alts and our Falcon alts. No no no, only one name shows up on the killmail therefore he's "solo."
The three chars of you combined :
Total character age about 20 years . Total damage done about 150 B . Total solo shipkills is exactly 9 . Best solo kill is a cheetah .
Next time you guys want to mock low-sec or high-sec people be sure to do it with characters that don't look like utter carebears themselves .
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 19:48:40 -
[3931] - Quote
flakeys wrote:
Next time you guys want to mock low-sec or high-sec people be sure to do it with characters that don't look like utter carebears themselves .
Sometimes, in Eve, people have multiple accounts. It's really kind of pointless to engage in these kinds of pissing matches here. Back on topic? |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2748
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 22:01:47 -
[3932] - Quote
davet517 wrote:flakeys wrote:
Next time you guys want to mock low-sec or high-sec people be sure to do it with characters that don't look like utter carebears themselves .
Sometimes, in Eve, people have multiple accounts. It's really kind of pointless to engage in these kinds of pissing matches here. Back on topic?
I didn't say they don't have chars with kills , i did however say post with those if you wish to make a bold statement about how you are going to ''kill carebearland'' when these changes hit .
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 22:20:35 -
[3933] - Quote
flakeys wrote:davet517 wrote:flakeys wrote:
Next time you guys want to mock low-sec or high-sec people be sure to do it with characters that don't look like utter carebears themselves .
Sometimes, in Eve, people have multiple accounts. It's really kind of pointless to engage in these kinds of pissing matches here. Back on topic? I didn't say they don't have chars with kills , i did however say post with those if you wish to make a bold statement about how you are going to ''kill carebearland'' when these changes hit .
Wow, didn't know that my PvE chars has 150B damage done... |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6654
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 07:07:22 -
[3934] - Quote
Yeah it seems my bomber alt has more damage done than the alt with an undockable ship.
DaBigRedBoat, the hero we need
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
D'vorien
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 13:05:36 -
[3935] - Quote
There are some problems with this idea related to an imbalance in the time spent for attackers who are not committed to taking the system.
As it is in the current live system, an attacker must commit a large amount of strategic resources (even if just player and capital ship time) to reinforce a sovereignty structure. If the attacker does not show up when it comes out of reinforcement, the defender can commit much less to recapture it.
The problem with the new system is that disparity has been reversed.
For a fully upgraded system: Minimum total player time for an attacker to reinforce a structure: 42 minutes. Minimum total player time time for a defender to reclaim the structure: 120 minutes (10 control nodes)
It's get worse as the indexes get lower.
I see this being a problem as small groups can simply reinforce a structure and not return, causing the opposing alliance to consume valuable time running around collecting control nodes. Giving the defender a way to win from an attackers inactivity without committing the time and effort of capturing control nodes is a good idea I feel.
The basic premise here should be:
1) The attacker should not be required to bring large fleets of big ships, rather they need to bring enough to defeat the defenders ships. This is in the new system. 2) Same for the defender, as it is in the new system. 3) The attacker is asking for the fight, if they want the fight, the defender should know where and when to find them.
I propose that in addition to the new system as it is in the dev blog, the attackers should be required to have a link active on the contested structure to be able to activate a link on any control node. The defenders cannot block the attackers link to the contested structure with their own link, but they can still block control nodes with their own links. If one side brings capital ships, escalation can happen, but the attacker still needs to capture nodes before the defender, and the defender will want to capture them to end the battle themselves.
The defending alliance can capture control nodes as normal without any links on the contested structure. The defenders can give up the battle at the structure, and fight the more mobile battles at the control nodes.
4) If the attacker fails to show up or commits insufficient forces, the defender should not be overly burdened in reclaiming the structure. For this I propose that as long as the attacker is not ahead of the defender in the tug of war, the defender can use a link on the contested structure for some length of time to recapture it. This allows a defender to commit only a small force to restore the structure as long as the attacker does not show up.
The big con I see here is that it could make things too easy for the defender. The attacker has to do well in both parts of the battle, the one at the structure to maintain the link, and at the control nodes, to capture ten more than the defender. The defender only needs to stop one. |
Kilab Gercias
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 13:28:31 -
[3936] - Quote
a Sov Struc is 42 mins under attack in the Prime Time and nobody shows up to defend it? You dont deserve that system. |
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 17:12:42 -
[3937] - Quote
D'vorien wrote: 3) The attacker is asking for the fight, if they want the fight, the defender should know where and when to find them.
I propose that in addition to the new system as it is in the dev blog, the attackers should be required to have a link active on the contested structure to be able to activate a link on any control node. The defenders cannot block the attackers link to the contested structure with their own link, but they can still block control nodes with their own links. If one side brings capital ships, escalation can happen, but the attacker still needs to capture nodes before the defender, and the defender will want to capture them to end the battle themselves.
The defending alliance can capture control nodes as normal without any links on the contested structure. The defenders can give up the battle at the structure, and fight the more mobile battles at the control nodes.
4) If the attacker fails to show up or commits insufficient forces, the defender should not be overly burdened in reclaiming the structure. For this I propose that as long as the attacker is not ahead of the defender in the tug of war, the defender can use a link on the contested structure for some length of time to recapture it. This allows a defender to commit only a small force to restore the structure as long as the attacker does not show up.
The big con I see here is that it could make things too easy for the defender. The attacker has to do well in both parts of the battle, the one at the structure to maintain the link, and at the control nodes, to capture ten more than the defender. The defender only needs to stop one.
So you will remove the use of the nodes and avoid the small scale fights. Because now you just park your whole defending fleet on the contested structure so the attackers cannot use their link. This removes the entire idea of this sov system.
And on top of that you want to avoid him from moving out of his fortress to capture those nodes? If going after some nodes that are uncontested is too much for the defenders then they don't deserve their sov. |
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
397
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 19:03:39 -
[3938] - Quote
D'vorien wrote:There are some problems with this idea related to an imbalance in the time spent for attackers who are not committed to taking the system. ...
For a fully upgraded system: Minimum total player time for an attacker to reinforce a structure: 42 minutes. Minimum total player time time for a defender to reclaim the structure: 120 minutes (10 control nodes)
From the dev blog, emphasis mine:
Quote:Immediately as the structure exits its reinforcement period, five Command Nodes will spawn at random points throughout the constellation. More than one Command Nodes can potentially spawn in the same system. As soon as each Command Node is captured, a new Command Node will spawn somewhere else in the constellation.
In addition, as time passes extra Command Nodes beyond the initial five have a chance to spawn and capturing those Nodes will also spawn new Nodes instantly. This ensures that if a capture event starts running long it becomes easier and easier for it to reach a resolution and for any stalemates to break.
If one side is allowed to capture the Command Nodes uncontested, then capturing 10 nodes will be enough to win the event. This means that it will be possible for a defender with no opposition and at least five active pilots to complete the event and secure their structure in less than 30 minutes of capturing. This minimum time would also be possible for a small group of aggressors who are attacking an undefended solar system with no occupancy indices.
For an unopposed system, the absolute minimum amount of time for defenders to reclaim the reinforced structure(s) is actually 24 minutes, not 120. All the defenders need to do is have five people grab the first five command nodes that spawn, one defender on each. With one defender on each, 12 minutes later (using T2 entosis link) five more command nodes spawn (one spawning per command node completed), they go grab those five, and 12 minutes later, they have successfully defended.
Realistically, it'll be closer to 30-35 minutes, as there will be some travel time around the constellation finding the nodes, warping, jumping.
Now, if the attackers show up to finish the job they started in good numbers, and the defenders have good numbers, you've got good fights going on! All kinds of chasing each other, attacking, reshipping, blocking, camping, putting your own entosis links on command nodes that the attackers are linking to, to stop their progress, all kinds of mayhem and chaos and absolute fun!
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
375
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 23:17:12 -
[3939] - Quote
Greygal wrote:D'vorien wrote:There are some problems with this idea related to an imbalance in the time spent for attackers who are not committed to taking the system. ...
For a fully upgraded system: Minimum total player time for an attacker to reinforce a structure: 42 minutes. Minimum total player time time for a defender to reclaim the structure: 120 minutes (10 control nodes)
From the dev blog, emphasis mine: Quote:Immediately as the structure exits its reinforcement period, five Command Nodes will spawn at random points throughout the constellation. More than one Command Nodes can potentially spawn in the same system. As soon as each Command Node is captured, a new Command Node will spawn somewhere else in the constellation.
In addition, as time passes extra Command Nodes beyond the initial five have a chance to spawn and capturing those Nodes will also spawn new Nodes instantly. This ensures that if a capture event starts running long it becomes easier and easier for it to reach a resolution and for any stalemates to break.
If one side is allowed to capture the Command Nodes uncontested, then capturing 10 nodes will be enough to win the event. This means that it will be possible for a defender with no opposition and at least five active pilots to complete the event and secure their structure in less than 30 minutes of capturing. This minimum time would also be possible for a small group of aggressors who are attacking an undefended solar system with no occupancy indices. For an unopposed system, the absolute minimum amount of time for defenders to reclaim the reinforced structure(s) is actually 24 minutes, not 120. All the defenders need to do is have five people grab the first five command nodes that spawn, one defender on each. With one defender on each, 12 minutes later (using T2 entosis link) five more command nodes spawn (one spawning per command node completed), they go grab those five, and 12 minutes later, they have successfully defended. Realistically, it'll be closer to 30-35 minutes, as there will be some travel time around the constellation finding the nodes, warping, jumping. Now, if the attackers show up to finish the job they started in good numbers, and the defenders have good numbers, you've got good fights going on! All kinds of chasing each other, attacking, reshipping, blocking, camping, putting your own entosis links on command nodes that the attackers are linking to, to stop their progress, all kinds of mayhem and chaos and absolute fun! Edit: Obviously, if the defenders don't bother showing up to defend, so long as the attackers show up with at least five people, a system with no defensive bonuses would take about 30-35 minutes including traveling around time to finish the attack, and in a system with max defensive bonuses, to capture 10 command nodes would take five attackers around 84 minutes - 42 minutes for the first five, then 42 minutes for the next five. In other words, the defender always has the time advantage in any system with any defensive bonuses at all - it will always take less time for the defender to capture a node than the attacker. In a system with no defensive bonuses, defender and attacker take exactly the same amount of time to capture a node. The new Eve Online - Mini Games R US.
Problem with your theory is, 1/ What if 3 nodes spawn in the same system and you have only 1 person in each system (travel time increased) 2/ When a constellation has 7 or 8 systems, your travel time is going to add up (unless CCP foolishly allow the fitting of Entosis links to anything other than command ships). 3/ If one of the systems is NPC nul and some random decides to shoot the nodes for fun. Or better still, shoot the guy with the Entosis link. 4/ The mini game structure simply gives the largest groups a huge advantage over everyone else. Whether defending or attacking the larger group will always win.
I am curious though, where do the good fights come from? The big groups have made it clear over the years, they won't fight each other. (that won't change) They have also announced the new Entosis module combined with the sov mini game will be the best griefing tool CCP has ever given them. Over 60% of sov nul is not capable of getting close to maximum defensive indexes (being generous here, I think it is closer to 80%, depending on alliance size), the rest is divided between the big 3. The only unopposed systems you will find, will be those not worth taking sov in. I'm sure people will take sov in next to useless systems, for a while, then realize throwing isk into a pit that will reap no rewards is pointless.
You want to look at how the new sov mechanics are likely to play out. Go to faction warfare space for a few days, take a look around. There are swathes of uncontested systems (because they just aren't worth contesting) and a few major hot spots controlled by the large alliances involved in FW. There are a few groups who make trillions and the majority (by comparison) make pennies (but still a good income if you put in the time). Hundreds in each faction involved in FW have never contested anything more than capture points and the reason they do that is for isk, not because they actually want to capture anything.
The difference will be, the majority of sov nul has little to no rewards for capturing and holding systems.
There is a bit of an invasion going on right now, personally i think it is a swan song to days of old. These guys know once the new sov mechanics come into play, there will be no more "sov wars" so want to try and get 1 last "good fight" before Sov Nul settles into a static little piece of history in the annals of Eve. (it won't be "good fights", over 3,000 vs 600+-).
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
398
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 00:06:45 -
[3940] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Problem with your theory is, 1/ What if 3 nodes spawn in the same system and you have only 1 person in each system (travel time increased) 2/ When a constellation has 7 or 8 systems, your travel time is going to add up (unless CCP foolishly allow the fitting of Entosis links to anything other than command ships). 3/ If one of the systems is NPC nul and some random decides to shoot the nodes for fun. Or better still, shoot the guy with the Entosis link. 4/ The mini game structure simply gives the largest groups a huge advantage over everyone else. Whether defending or attacking the larger group will always win.
It's not a theory, it's how it's designed: Five nodes will spawn immediately upon the 48 hour timer expiring, then one will spawn for each node that is completed. As I said above, minimum time to complete 10 nodes is 24 minutes, NOT the minimum time of 120 minutes that you stated.
There are NO constellations in nullsec that have BOTH player owned and NPC owned systems in the same constellation. Go check the map on Dotlan. Ain't a single one.
The overwhelming number of constellations in Eve are only 6-8 systems in size. Even a carrier will take about 2 minutes to travel each system (depending upon how it's fit, of course... )
Randoms shooting the nodes for fun is to not only be expected, but, hey, maybe even hoped for The whole point of the entosis link incapciating your warp drive is so people CAN SHOOT YOU, so yes, randoms (and maybe defenders) will shoot your link pilots. Let us hope so, in fact! Target rich environments benefit everyone!
The largest groups will have a huge advantage over everyone else. This is true now, ridiculously true, and it will remain true. The difference between now and when FozzieSov goes live is that small and medium groups have a significantly improved PROBABILITY of messing with the largest groups, attacking their sov, their station upgrades (boring), their ihubs and TCUs, forcing the big guys to undock and play with us, instead of just pos'ing up every time they see a single person in local.
I routinely roam deep nullsec, and I've entered systems that had 125+ people in local who ALL DOCKED UP, and would not undock even a single ship, to throw at my fleet of 28 players under 3 months old flying T1-fit frigates. (We hopped back through Thera, traveled another 18 systems, then had a fabulous furr-ball brawl with Brave). After these changes, I bet the next time I swing through that same area, not only will they undock, they'll engage us, because any one of us could be a potential threat to their structures.
Assuming, of course, it's their prime time. If it's not their prime time, I'm just another gang interfering with their afk ratting, no threat at all to their sov. Don't get me started on prime time... I've already posted walls-of-text in the proper thread for that :)
Not the place for the discussion, but I will admit I hope CCP sets it so the entosis link can be fit on virtually ANY ship. Limiting it to high/highly skilled and/or big ships completely defeats Goal #3 in the blog, which describes the pressure to keep bringing more and more heavy metal as a "major flaw:"
Quote:One major flaw of the current Dominion Sovereignty system is that the use of structure hitpoint grinding forces players to use huge numbers of players or colossal capital ships to fight over space, even when they would otherwise prefer to work in smaller units.
While I can easily imagine - and may even be planning, muhahaha! - small gangs of 3 to 5 pilots for initial structure attacks, I doubt anyone who is even ever so slightly serious will go back at the end of the reinforcement timer with less than a gang of 25-40. Lots of small and medium sized groups are talking about entosis link squads of 15-20 people, plus ewar, logi, dps, and other support. Except for the big boys and their big toys, much of the early theorycrafting and strategising I'm hearing indicates gangs of 40-50 attacking systems that are in deep null, border systems that are poor true sec, and renter space will likely be common for the reinforcement timers.
And of course, the big boys will throw hundreds at each other ... assuming they are in compatible prime times....
Dang forum character limits... splitting up my response into two posts :)
GG
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
|
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
398
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 00:43:28 -
[3941] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:I am curious though, where do the good fights come from? The big groups have made it clear over the years, they won't fight each other. (that won't change) They have also announced the new Entosis module combined with the sov mini game will be the best griefing tool CCP has ever given them. Over 60% of sov nul is not capable of getting close to maximum defensive indexes (being generous here, I think it is closer to 80%, depending on alliance size), the rest is divided between the big 3. The only unopposed systems you will find, will be those not worth taking sov in. I'm sure people will take sov in next to useless systems, for a while, then realize throwing isk into a pit that will reap no rewards is pointless.
The big groups won't shatter and scatter, even with these changes the odds are exceedingly low of that. They will, however, contract some, and I would not be surprised if even contracting took a long time. Until someone insults someone else's girlfriend again at Fanfest, or a director goes major rogue, or bills don't get autopaid, I don't expect to see any major shifts in the major alliances. They are not only well established, they have strong leadership structures, excellent logistic and financial administrations, extended diplomatic and intelligence networks, strong cultural identities, and extensive experience. FozzieSov won't break them up nor will it force them to fight each other. The prime time mechanic, as it is currently designed, reduces the possibility of the major alliances engaging in full-on absolute warfare even more.
However, Renter space is going to collapse in on itself, and many who are more experienced and smarter than I am predict that will happen FAST. Significant drops in rental income will hurt some of the majors. Some believe that renter empires will simply become extortion rings - I don't think so, because the renters can always move out. Most - not all - have no shared cultural identity with their landlords, nor much of an emotional attachment to their rented system. If the landlords push the renters too hard, they'll leave. But rental space is mostly lightly defended, patrolled only by the renters themselves, opening the space up for lots of nuisance by the little engines that could, because they think they can...
Honestly, if there is to be a war of the titans coming this summer, it's going to take place in renter space. That is where I think we're most likely to see the big boys duke it out. Renter space isn't all entirely crap... some of those systems rent for as little as 500mill a month, others more than six to eight billion a month. The renters I know are all paying between one and three billion a month in rent - and all of them have been renters for extensive time.
I do think Fozzie is overstating the case that nullsec income is excellent based on the metrics... but I also suspect it's not nearly as dire as others make it out to be. The economics of nullsec definitely need some tender loving care.
I've not looked closely at the frequency of high indexes in sov nullsec, but I don't think you are far off at 60-80% CURRENTLY having high indexes... I do believe more systems are capable of it than 60-80%, though the incentive to push those systems' indexes high is simply not there right now. The defensive bonuses that high indexes will bring, I imagine, will further encourage more index-affecting activities in sov space, because that time advantage is HUGE to the defenders.
Quote:You want to look at how the new sov mechanics are likely to play out. Go to faction warfare space for a few days, take a look around. There are swathes of uncontested systems ... Hundreds in each faction involved in FW have never contested anything more than capture points and the reason they do that is for isk, ...The difference will be, the majority of sov nul has little to no rewards for capturing and holding systems.
The rewards of attacking, capturing, and holding a system are far more ephemeral than simple isk. The ultimate reward is home, this is my home, for however long I may hold it, it is mine, ours. For lots of little guys, that is priceless.
I am very familiar with faction warfare. I fought for the Amarr with Agony Unleashed about two years ago, and you think the afk/cloaky plex runners are bad now? You should have seen what it was like before CCP nerfed the heck out of it with a pushed-forward patch that mid winter.
In fact, one of the best fights I ever had in all my time in Eve happened in facwar. It was the middle of Australian time zone, in fact... we were bored one night, and I noticed that Kourmonen was oh, think about 35-40% contested. Half jokingly, I said, "Hey guys, why don't we push Kourmonen, let's see how high we can get it while all the Late Night guys are asleep..." So we started plexing. As the hours progressed, others joined us, and as the level got higher, the Euro TZ Minmatar started awakening, bringing a few small gangs in, and we started duking it out in small and medium plexes at first... then more... then more... and it just escalated into constant warfare, fighting over single plexes for hours at a time... I ended up in constant battles for 16 hours straight before I finally had to sleep... the fights continued for over 36 hours... people were logging in alts to rush to market to buy more ships 'cause we were running out... that last 2% took around four hours... but the Amarr did it. Kourmonen was flipped.
Ideally, with luck, we will see extended contests and fights and slugfests like that in nullsec. Won't be every day, or even every week... won't be every system or constellation or region... but it will be SOME of them.
And that's what we'll be talking about years later, like those of us in the battle for Kourmonen still talk about those days.
GÖÑ
GG
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 01:28:16 -
[3942] - Quote
Greygal wrote: The rewards of attacking, capturing, and holding a system are far more ephemeral than simple isk. The ultimate reward is home, this is my home, for however long I may hold it, it is mine, ours. We did this! For lots of little guys, that is priceless.
This belongs on a thoughtful card, not enshrined as a game mechanic.
Home implies worth living there, and worth defending, neither of which are true currently. High Sec and Low Sec still have much greater accessible bottom up income options, with none of the hassle or time required to maintain and defend.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
398
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 02:15:00 -
[3943] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Greygal wrote: The rewards of attacking, capturing, and holding a system are far more ephemeral than simple isk. The ultimate reward is home, this is my home, for however long I may hold it, it is mine, ours. We did this! For lots of little guys, that is priceless.
This belongs on a thoughtful card, not enshrined as a game mechanic. Home implies worth living there, and worth defending, neither of which are true currently. High Sec and Low Sec still have much greater accessible bottom up income options, with none of the hassle or time required to maintain and defend.
Oh, I don't disagree - high sec and low sec do have much more accessible bottom up income opportunities. It's true. Isk earning in low/high is ridiculously low/no risk, minimal defense, virtually no maintenance. It's completely whacked.
But it's also not home, you can never own low/null sec space (well, you can dominate an area, but never own it). You are simply renters in a tenement with no security guard or doorman stopping anyone from entering your station.
Those who call a system home define for themselves what makes it worth living there. For some, it's about the isk, and only the isk... for others, it's about the emotional engagement. That sense of home is a strong motivational factor - at least, for many of us who never had the experience of actually flying through a system, seeing our name in space, knowing we took the risk and won.
Emotional connection is a mighty powerful incentive to put it all on the line, an incentive not to be discounted.
As I also said above, though, nullsec economics definitely need some tender loving care
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 02:44:37 -
[3944] - Quote
Greygal wrote: Ideally, with luck, we will see extended contests and fights and slugfests like that in nullsec. Won't be every day, or even every week... won't be every system or constellation or region... but it will be SOME of them.
And that's what we'll be talking about years later, like those of us in the battle for Kourmonen still talk about those days.
Assuming they fix prime time GÖÑ
GG
Renter space will go 1 of 2 ways - Large areas of renters paying little more than "Protection Fees" or a multitude of empty systems.
Many renters could not protect their space if push came to shove, so yes many will just leave, or as indy becomes more important to survival in sov, be absorbed into one or other of the bloks.
I'm not expecting much to change with the large coalitions at all, these changes are ideal for them. They simply drop sov in all the systems they never use anyway and reduce the cost of holding sov. A smaller contained area of sov is far easier to defend than having it spread out all over the map. What we are likely to see is the large bloks leaving 1 or 2 decent systems close to them unclaimed, thereby ensuring at least some content for the masses as "someone" will get it into their heads they can take it. They will only hold sov there for as long as they are providing content (killmails) for the coalition, who for all intents and purposes, owns the system/s without the added costs of maintaining them.
Some sov contests (not fights initially) are quite likely to escalate into "a fight" depending on who has the most allies close enough to escalate it. Smaller groups trying to escalate and hold their sov, will simply be over run by sheer numbers.
You are right about 1 thing; currently holding sov has little to do with the ability to earn isk and is more about "Your Place" and planting your flag. The coming changes also change that in a very big way for anyone serious about keeping "Your Place". Defensive indexes based on system use = Every system you hold must be financially viable, or you have no defensive index.
We all have memories of "good fights", "great fights" and a few "Epic Fights" but that is all they are and likely to remain - Memories. The mini game concept and fixed "time to fight" prime time means there is no need for or time for extended large scale fights. Large groups will simply blob anyone who threatens them (or just for fun) so unless you have 20,000 or 30,000 allies to call on, it will all be over relatively quickly.
- - - - - - - - - - Off topic but related; Smaller groups are at a huge disadvantage from the start with all the movement restrictions. A small group trying to relocate in nulsec is faced with a real task that for many will just mean, they don't bother. Moving a few carriers is now an epic task, with what was 2 jumps with a max skilled carrier pilot now 6 jumps (2 through hostile territory) or 12 jumps (relatively safely) just to get from point A to B. Then another 8 jumps to the proposed new home. Taking gates is out of the question, unless you are prepared to risk everything you own going gate to gate in hostile space.. The 6 jump route can be reduced to 4 by taking 9 gates, in hostile space. The longer route can't be reduced, unless you takes 3 or 4 gates between each cyno jump, again all through hostile space. I am a director of a +-100 man corp who is in the process of doing this now. We had a choice, try to join the invading alliance when/if they take sov, or relocate and go it alone for a while. Going it alone was a pretty much unanimous vote, so we are faced with a task that (only a few months ago would have been difficult) is now horrendous.
CCP say they want smaller groups to have opportunities in sov nul yet all the changes, so far and those to come, favor the large entities almost to the exclusion of smaller groups.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
D'vorien
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 06:00:12 -
[3945] - Quote
I should note that my proposal was not "here is how it should be done", but rather "changes could be made to the core idea in order to fix some of the problems with it, here are some ideas." My ideas have problems, I agree.
159Pinky wrote: So you will remove the use of the nodes and avoid the small scale fights. Because now you just park your whole defending fleet on the contested structure so the attackers cannot use their link. This removes the entire idea of this sov system.
And on top of that you want to avoid him from moving out of his fortress to capture those nodes? If going after some nodes that are uncontested is too much for the defenders then they don't deserve their sov.
I do agree there is some problems with my suggestion in this regard, but I don't think it's as bad as you suggest.
First, as it stands now, the attackers still need to defeat the defenders, or keep their DPS ships alive long enough under the defenders fire to reinforce/kill the structure. In this new system's first phase they need to keep their link ships alive long enough to reinforce the structure, in the second phase, depending on the system development index, they need to outperform the defender in the capturing race.
In the changes I proposed, even if the defender puts a large fleet at the structure and ignores the control nodes, a clever opponent could use maneuvers and timing to get a link active on the structure, and allow their smaller fleets at the control nodes to begin the capture. They also need to stop the defenders from capturing control nodes.
Greygal wrote:D'vorien wrote:There are some problems with this idea related to an imbalance in the time spent for attackers who are not committed to taking the system. ...
For a fully upgraded system: Minimum total player time for an attacker to reinforce a structure: 42 minutes. Minimum total player time time for a defender to reclaim the structure: 120 minutes (10 control nodes)
From the dev blog, emphasis mine: Quote:Immediately as the structure exits its reinforcement period, five Command Nodes will spawn at random points throughout the constellation. More than one Command Nodes can potentially spawn in the same system. As soon as each Command Node is captured, a new Command Node will spawn somewhere else in the constellation.
In addition, as time passes extra Command Nodes beyond the initial five have a chance to spawn and capturing those Nodes will also spawn new Nodes instantly. This ensures that if a capture event starts running long it becomes easier and easier for it to reach a resolution and for any stalemates to break.
If one side is allowed to capture the Command Nodes uncontested, then capturing 10 nodes will be enough to win the event. This means that it will be possible for a defender with no opposition and at least five active pilots to complete the event and secure their structure in less than 30 minutes of capturing. This minimum time would also be possible for a small group of aggressors who are attacking an undefended solar system with no occupancy indices. For an unopposed system, the absolute minimum amount of time for defenders to reclaim the reinforced structure(s) is actually 24 minutes, not 120. All the defenders need to do is have five people grab the first five command nodes that spawn, one defender on each. With one defender on each, 12 minutes later (using T2 entosis link) five more command nodes spawn (one spawning per command node completed), they go grab those five, and 12 minutes later, they have successfully defended. Realistically, it'll be closer to 30-35 minutes, as there will be some travel time around the constellation finding the nodes, warping, jumping. Now, if the attackers show up to finish the job they started in good numbers, and the defenders have good numbers, you've got good fights going on! All kinds of chasing each other, attacking, reshipping, blocking, camping, putting your own entosis links on command nodes that the attackers are linking to, to stop their progress, all kinds of mayhem and chaos and absolute fun! Edit: Obviously, if the defenders don't bother showing up to defend, so long as the attackers show up with at least five people, a system with no defensive bonuses would take about 30-35 minutes including traveling around time to finish the attack, and in a system with max defensive bonuses, to capture 10 command nodes would take five attackers around 84 minutes - 42 minutes for the first five, then 42 minutes for the next five. In other words, the defender always has the time advantage in any system with any defensive bonuses at all - it will always take less time for the defender to capture a node than the attacker. In a system with no defensive bonuses, defender and attacker take exactly the same amount of time to capture a node.
My point was that it was the minimum time spent by all players participating. If you had 5 players, each spending 24 minutes capturing, then 48 minutes is the absolute minimum time to reclaim, but that's 5 players spending 24 minutes, or 120 player minutes total. On the other hand one player can spend 42 minutes and reinforce the structure.
I don't know how easy it would be to use a very small force to reinforce structures, whether it's something that the defenders can respond to regularly, or on the defenders side whether they can manage to use small numbers of ships to capture control nodes when roaming gangs may be on the prowl for them. it may very well be more commitment on the attackers side than I imagine to reinforce structures, and not as bad on the defenders side.
In the second phase with the control nodes, the defenders do have a time advantage against the attackers, but attackers using less gametime to force the defenders to use more I feel is a poor choice, it leads to weaponizing boredom. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 10:26:43 -
[3946] - Quote
D'vorien wrote:
The basic premise here should be:
1) The attacker should not be required to bring large fleets of big ships, rather they need to bring enough to defeat the defenders ships. This is in the new system. 2) Same for the defender, as it is in the new system. 3) The attacker is asking for the fight, if they want the fight, the defender should know where and when to find them.
I propose that in addition to the new system as it is in the dev blog, the attackers should be required to have a link active on the contested structure to be able to activate a link on any control node. The defenders cannot block the attackers link to the contested structure with their own link, but they can still block control nodes with their own links. If one side brings capital ships, escalation can happen, but the attacker still needs to capture nodes before the defender, and the defender will want to capture them to end the battle themselves.
The defending alliance can capture control nodes as normal without any links on the contested structure. The defenders can give up the battle at the structure, and fight the more mobile battles at the control nodes.
4) If the attacker fails to show up or commits insufficient forces, the defender should not be overly burdened in reclaiming the structure. For this I propose that as long as the attacker is not ahead of the defender in the tug of war, the defender can use a link on the contested structure for some length of time to recapture it. This allows a defender to commit only a small force to restore the structure as long as the attacker does not show up.
The big con I see here is that it could make things too easy for the defender. The attacker has to do well in both parts of the battle, the one at the structure to maintain the link, and at the control nodes, to capture ten more than the defender. The defender only needs to stop one.
Working on the slim premise the sov is valuable enough to want to defend it or take it.
1) Do you in any way believe a 10,000 man alliance is not going to send the biggest possible fleet they can muster?
2) Same for defender ?- What is proposed is only going to see small alliances fielding small fleets (because that is all they have) large alliances and coalitions will still send as many as they can because there is one thing that has been proven over and over in eve - Biggest Blob Wins. The proposed changes will not change that. Just because something can be done with 5 ships in no way means that 5 ships is all they will send.
3) Control nodes spread out over a constellation of systems the alliance may not have any interest in is just a really bad idea. It is just too easily griefed to be a valid mechanic. Neither the defender or attacker need to take the nodes, it could be any random player or group who feels like griefing or has their own agenda, just because they can.
For control nodes to be valid tools for holding or losing sov, they need to be in the contested system, not spread around 5 to 8 systems the alliance does not control to start with. 5 nodes spread around the average size system is just as likely to bring about small engagements as having them in different systems. 3) a/ All Entosis links should only be activated by a parent control link - attacker and defender need to have an active link on the ihub to capture nodes. The parent link adjusts the capture and defense of the ihub in real time, as a node is won or lost the ihub is directly affected. If it becomes system wide skirmishes for node control, extra nodes can still spawn at random positions around the system until there is a clear winner. If no attackers turn up to contest the nodes, defenders can reclaim their ihub by simply having 6 active links for the duration of the capture process. If no defenders turn up, the process for capture is the same, 6 active links can flip the ihub after X amount of time.
EG; Stationed system held by XX alliance is in a constellation of 7. Their system is one of 3 stationed systems in the constellation, the other 2 are in NPC nul. 3 other systems in the constellation have R16 and R8 moons (reasonable income for a small alliance or largish corp) but their security status means they are unlikely to be taken as sov due to the lack of content in them, they will never be able to get a defensive index. One of the 3 is also in the NPC part of the constellation so no sov there.
XX only hold the one system due to small numbers. They wanted to achieve the sov dream and plant their flag. Alliance XY attacks XX with the intention of taking sov from them. Alliance YZ is not aligned to either and are happy to live in the NPC part of the pocket with no sov bills or imminent threats of eviction but do want control of those moons. Moons which XX defends like a mother dog watching over her puppies. (my brothers *****, usually a friendly dog just had pups and i have the scar to prove, she is a good mum)
Alliance XX is not only fighting XY for the sov but YZ decide to join the fray in the hope of getting rid of XX and take those moons. Defending the system and their sov for XX is possible, unless it means fighting on 7 different fronts against multiple enemies (with different agendas but the same initial goal of - get rid of XX)
4) See 3) a/ (if the attacker doesn't turn up, it should be relatively easy for the defender to "win")
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 12:28:59 -
[3947] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Working on the slim premise the sov is valuable enough to want to defend it or take it.
1) Do you in any way believe a 10,000 man alliance is not going to send the biggest possible fleet they can muster?
2) Same for defender ?- What is proposed is only going to see small alliances fielding small fleets (because that is all they have) large alliances and coalitions will still send as many as they can because there is one thing that has been proven over and over in eve - Biggest Blob Wins. The proposed changes will not change that. Just because something can be done with 5 ships in no way means that 5 ships is all they will send.
3) Control nodes spread out over a constellation of systems the alliance may not have any interest in is just a really bad idea. It is just too easily griefed to be a valid mechanic. Neither the defender or attacker need to take the nodes, it could be any random player or group who feels like griefing or has their own agenda, just because they can.
1) Ofc they will. However the 5 man hitsquads from any smaller alliance will always have their mobility and agility way way way above the 100+ man fleets. Time will show, wether that is going to be enough or not.
2) Bigger numbers should always have the edge. No matter what. If they are able to get 10x fleetsize to the same grid with the attackers 5-10 man fleet, there should not be a realistic way the 5-10 men win that fight. It would be the worst kind of inbalance. However, again, the 5-10 man squadrons move faster, work better, communicate better and thus are able with their mobility to do some harm. Hopefully. Unless we get a new meta of 250km sniping tachyon apocs just sitting at 0 of the beacon and blapping everything.
3) Wrong. That is exactly a perfect idea. A nowday traditional blobwarfare fleet consists of 1 fleet commander who does all the work. Spreading around the nodes to different systems gives room for RL skill to counter numbers. Not infidinetly, but to certain level. Coalitiona warfare duders need to start to school more FC's, more capable dudes etc. For example, if VFK was reinforced for a real attempt of sov by everyone else, but CFC, CFC would field a full fleet to each command node. Then the attackers would be forced to form 5 fleets to fight the full fleets in each node. It's way more possible to fight with 100 vs 250 in each command node, than it is to fight with 2x250 fleets vs 5x250 fleets as we have it now. Also this command node system makes the fights more prolonged. If one attacking fleet looses it's fight, but four wins, the loosing fleet has to reship fast and get back in action, or it will create a chaineffect of losses. Same goes to defenders. This will also bring us a completely new variety of roles in fleets. As simple as it seems, the guys with sovlazor needs to be killed. If the trollceptor concept stays alive, that means, that the fleets will actually need anticeptor squads to take care of the ceppies. etc etc etc.
All in all, this just increases opportunities for content, opportunities for GF's. Griefing may become a thing, but so what? What do you loose by having your sov reinforced to the first cycle? Nothing at all. If someone want's to reinforce your respected region for trolling causes, so what? You have 0 things to loose on that. If you then are not able to get atleast 1 set of eyes to each reinforced system, you do not deserve that amount of sov. And again, even in this scenario a small focused group can move fast and agily around the region to poke on the weak spots and search for responsefleets. If the said defending entity is not able to scramble together a fleet to defend their entire reinforced region, they do not deserve a region of sov. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 13:22:28 -
[3948] - Quote
Ugly Eric wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Working on the slim premise the sov is valuable enough to want to defend it or take it.
1) Do you in any way believe a 10,000 man alliance is not going to send the biggest possible fleet they can muster?
2) Same for defender ?- What is proposed is only going to see small alliances fielding small fleets (because that is all they have) large alliances and coalitions will still send as many as they can because there is one thing that has been proven over and over in eve - Biggest Blob Wins. The proposed changes will not change that. Just because something can be done with 5 ships in no way means that 5 ships is all they will send.
3) Control nodes spread out over a constellation of systems the alliance may not have any interest in is just a really bad idea. It is just too easily griefed to be a valid mechanic. Neither the defender or attacker need to take the nodes, it could be any random player or group who feels like griefing or has their own agenda, just because they can.
1) Ofc they will. However the 5 man hitsquads from any smaller alliance will always have their mobility and agility way way way above the 100+ man fleets. Time will show, wether that is going to be enough or not. 2) Bigger numbers should always have the edge. No matter what. If they are able to get 10x fleetsize to the same grid with the attackers 5-10 man fleet, there should not be a realistic way the 5-10 men win that fight. It would be the worst kind of inbalance. However, again, the 5-10 man squadrons move faster, work better, communicate better and thus are able with their mobility to do some harm. Hopefully. Unless we get a new meta of 250km sniping tachyon apocs just sitting at 0 of the beacon and blapping everything. 3) Wrong. That is exactly a perfect idea. A nowday traditional blobwarfare fleet consists of 1 fleet commander who does all the work. Spreading around the nodes to different systems gives room for RL skill to counter numbers. Not infidinetly, but to certain level. Coalitiona warfare duders need to start to school more FC's, more capable dudes etc. For example, if VFK was reinforced for a real attempt of sov by everyone else, but CFC, CFC would field a full fleet to each command node. Then the attackers would be forced to form 5 fleets to fight the full fleets in each node. It's way more possible to fight with 100 vs 250 in each command node, than it is to fight with 2x250 fleets vs 5x250 fleets as we have it now. Also this command node system makes the fights more prolonged. If one attacking fleet looses it's fight, but four wins, the loosing fleet has to reship fast and get back in action, or it will create a chaineffect of losses. Same goes to defenders. This will also bring us a completely new variety of roles in fleets. As simple as it seems, the guys with sovlazor needs to be killed. If the trollceptor concept stays alive, that means, that the fleets will actually need anticeptor squads to take care of the ceppies. etc etc etc. All in all, this just increases opportunities for content, opportunities for GF's. Griefing may become a thing, but so what? What do you loose by having your sov reinforced to the first cycle? Nothing at all. If someone want's to reinforce your respected region for trolling causes, so what? You have 0 things to loose on that. If you then are not able to get atleast 1 set of eyes to each reinforced system, you do not deserve that amount of sov. And again, even in this scenario a small focused group can move fast and agily around the region to poke on the weak spots and search for responsefleets. If the said defending entity is not able to scramble together a fleet to defend their entire reinforced region, they do not deserve a region of sov. You didn't actually read my post did you? Simply picked a few lines out and wrote a response that had nothing at all to do with what i was trying to convey.
Well done.,.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 13:50:22 -
[3949] - Quote
I read nearly all post's and my summary is that the new sov system is all but not about sov.
The new sov system isn't about bringing new entities to sov null. The new sov system is not about harming the rent system. The new sov system is not about soften the blue donut. The new sov system is not about populating empty sov space. The new sov system is not about making it easier to understand. Imagine here some more points i missed.
A good sov system should be like the following: The owner of a system is the corp that has the most activity in a system and pays the ccp fees.
My conclusion is that the real goal of the upcoming sov system is to get more but smaller fights with accepting that the sov null will be less populated in special by smaller entities. This is short sighted and does not meet the ccp team.
Some thoughts to your goals.
Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved - Replace players with attackers. Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems - Needing several pages with images clarifies this for sure. Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle. - In fact this is an empty sentence. Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space. - This is good and will happen (until the new sov holder realize that the former empty space is worthless in most cases). Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space. - This is an empty promise. Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load. - Most player would support that. Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE. - Sounds that you don't trust the new sov system yourself.
|
Kilab Gercias
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 15:34:44 -
[3950] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote: Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE. - Sounds that you don't trust the new sov system yourself.
Nope CCP learned the hard way, that we the player are doing always every unthinkable thing which is possible. The Playerbase of Eve 99% MR Murphys testing every System to the breaking Point. |
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
473
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 19:10:15 -
[3951] - Quote
Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:
- Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
- Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
- Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
- Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
- Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 19:58:31 -
[3952] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:
- Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
- Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
- Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
- Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
- Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
Noone is interested in this details as this capture the flag system wont work for sov.
|
Joe Themachine
Sleeper Tech. Research Foundation
59
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 19:59:13 -
[3953] - Quote
Look, I like the new system in that it takes out the shooting of structures out of the equation and replaces it with the entosis system, but for God's sake, the whole reinforcement and timer system defeats the purpose of being able to wardec larger alliances effectively because it gives them time to organize a defense, which we know is not always the case in reality. What's the point of a sneak attack if my opponent has 24-48 hours to prepare monstrous defenses? you can change the entire system but unless you're able to make it so that a small corp/alliance is able to jump in during some specific timezone and be able to capture a structure almost instantly, the whole system still gives the advantage to the defending alliance, which , in most cases, is a larger well funded alliance. This is the reason behind nullsec stagnation.
Moreover, creating a system where sovereignty mechanics are so difficult to understand that new players and new corporations and new alliances have a hard time figuring out how to get into the sovereignty game. It creates a barrier to entry which cannot be overcome unless you've been playing the game for years on end. This means that you've created another advantage for larger alliances and corporations that have been around for longer and have much more experience than their smaller counterparts. Ultimately, small gang warfare and minor sov. Warfare cannot be increased and helped unless the timer system is completely abolished. If the timer system is completely abolished guerrilla warfare, sneak attacks, and perhaps even economic warfare become an effective possibility for strangling your opponents economically, and militarily regardless of their size while still allowing them a size advantage which they could capitalize on. On a more theoretical note, the timer and reinforcement system makes no sense from the lore perspective.
If you will force smaller alliances and smaller corporations to always wait until large alliances and large corporations get their act together through some kind of timer system then you can never create a dynamic nullsec regardless of which system is chosen to claim any given system.
My proposal is that the timer system be done away with completely, that the system of fulfilling certain requirements in the constellation be done away with completely, and that a simple system of "you sit on it you claim it" be implemented given a specific time zone or a time of vulnerability that the defending alliance or corporation can choose at their will. This is the closest possible modeling for real warfare in real life because one can claim that even capsuleers Need to Sleep.
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
474
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 20:49:09 -
[3954] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:
- Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
- Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
- Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
- Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
- Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
Noone is interested in this details as this capture the flag system wont work for sov.
It certainly looks like it will work quite a bit better than the current system. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 21:56:06 -
[3955] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:
- Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
- Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
- Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
- Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
- Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
Noone is interested in this details as this capture the flag system wont work for sov. It certainly looks like it will work quite a bit better than the current system. How exactly will it work better than the current system? It completely favors large groups, so before it is even released CCP have not achieved at least 2 of the stated goals for these changes.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
475
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 22:20:42 -
[3956] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: How exactly will it work better than the current system? It completely favors large groups, so before it is even released CCP have not achieved at least 2 of the stated goals for these changes.
Everything in an open-world game favours larger groups. However, this new capture system favours split fleet tactics. It obviously won't completely remove the ultimate power of The Blob, but at least tones down the alpha by splitting the blob into smaller blobs. By making sov easier to take from entities not willing to fight for it, and to an extent more accessible to smaller alliances, it also has high potential for increasing the number of conflicts.
You don't provide any arguments for your opinions about CCP not meeting their design goals, so I just have to disagree with you there and state that the currently published plan looks likely to meet player's wishes and CCP's vision for null better than current sov system.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 23:37:33 -
[3957] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: How exactly will it work better than the current system? It completely favors large groups, so before it is even released CCP have not achieved at least 2 of the stated goals for these changes.
Everything in an open-world game favours larger groups. However, this new capture system favours split fleet tactics. It obviously won't completely remove the ultimate power of The Blob, but at least tones down the alpha by splitting the blob into smaller blobs. By making sov easier to take from entities not willing to fight for it, and to an extent more accessible to smaller alliances, it also has high potential for increasing the number of conflicts. You don't provide any arguments for your opinions about CCP not meeting their design goals, so I just have to disagree with you there and state that the currently published plan looks likely to meet player's wishes and CCP's vision for null better than current sov system. Go back a few pages. I have (I think) clearly shown arguments as to how these changes fall short of goals.
How is a constellation wide mini game in any way going to help a small entity capture or hold sov? You say by splitting the blob, I say it won't split the blob and will simply mean they send 5 blobs instead of 1.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Flaming Butterfly
Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 23:48:14 -
[3958] - Quote
unless CCP makes it some arbitrary system with up to 100 people (50/50) involved in a series of 7 matches with winner of 4 taking the series/sov, anything CCP does is going to be abused by the ones with the greatest numbers. if CCP made freighters have 2 billion hull and a DCU, you'd not see the end of suicide ganking, you'd see suicide ganking fleets of 2000 nados. The reason Sansha doesn't control almost anything is because of capsuleer numbers... make the incurion more powerful and you'll just see more pilots... |
BIGDOG4
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 00:54:56 -
[3959] - Quote
Why do you bother discussing something that you gonna do nomatather if players want the change or not ? You are pushing the sov to the point where people gonna ask themselves the question why bother owning sov at all ? Furthermore wont be the first time you change somethin in the game even tho players got outraged about ! Ill give you the example remooving the jukebox even tho thousand of players protested and petitioned you to bring it back. So i don't think our opinion matters at all. Instead of probing the players moods start to actually play the game to see how things work instead of just guessing! |
Zhul Chembull
Universalis Imperium The Bastion
101
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 03:00:33 -
[3960] - Quote
Listen guys,
I am not against all this necessarily, but the recent changes to capitals range, now to drones and now to sov changes will have a lot of unintended consequences. Let me explain a bit and if I am wrong, please point it out.
1: Removing the usefulness of supers and carriers with the sov changes mean they will be in less demand. We have already seen in our alliances how people are getting rid of these like hot cakes. With less demand, means less demand for minerals, since they are the mineral hogs of the game. In turn I think this will stagnate the market and make the life of the miner a lot less profitable as it is right. if that was possible right ?
2: I really think that the long term interest in the game will die down, as there is no reason to train towards the big toys anymore. Most people I know were so excited to work towards that big carrier, just on observation on my part. With the changes geared toward small fleet battles with small ships, there really is no reason to train into a carrier.
Overall, I think the consequences will be a smaller player base as it will become more of a capture the flag routine than anything. There are a lot of games that do that a lot better at the current time. I might be wrong here, but just some friendly advice. I have been here for 11 years and don't see much good in this upcoming expansion. However, I was wrong about the JC changes and perhaps I am here as well. We will see. |
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1506
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 05:08:57 -
[3961] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Go back a few pages. I have (I think) clearly shown arguments as to how these changes fall short of goals.
How is a constellation wide mini game in any way going to help a small entity capture or hold sov? You say by splitting the blob, I say it won't split the blob and will simply mean they send 5 blobs instead of 1.
The only counter to the blob is arranged X vs. X contests, which are antithetical to EVE's design.
The only available limiters, such as they are, are wormholes and acceleration gates. The latter only limits type, not number, and the mechanics of the former would be gamed six ways from Sunday.
What CCP is hoping to do is:
1) lower the bar enough that smaller groups can contest sov, knowing full well that all such systems will also make it easier for large groups to contest sov (EVE's design makes that inevitable), and;
2) try to spread any conflict out over multiple systems to prevent 10% Time Dilation, the lag monster, and full-on node crashes.
The first is merely meant to make it easier for anyone to grab a system whose local defenses they can meaningfully contest. It's not meant to do anything else, and quite honestly it can't do anything else. CFC will still be CFC; N3 will still be N3; and so on. If Goonswarm decides to throw their weight around by effectively acting like dozens or hundreds of small alliances, v0v. It's a sandbox. That's their decision. As one of them noted above, they're only going to listen to "daddy" anyway, not act according to any in-game carrots or sticks. And they're big and wealthy and well-organized enough to do that within any system CCP decides to roll out.
The second is why they're insisting on constellation-wide contests, instead of your (admittedly pretty) idea of multiple contest points in system. The problem isn't that there are 4000 people on one grid, it's that there are 4000 people on one node.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Pursche
ProLogics Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 05:51:31 -
[3962] - Quote
ok So you had about 3800 posts from pvpers here. Now you got one from a renter and industialist.
I live in 0.0 with a small corp. I pay my rent and have been doing so for the last three yers to different sov holders. I do not care who owns the systems as long as I can dock and sell everything I make out here. I do not care how they/you hold or take sov But I really dislikes when CCP is going to take my SBU- Bpo away and give me a few isk and then I need to go to the dreadfull Empire to get the new Entosis Bpo.
So wake up and just change my Bpo to the other one and let me do my Planetary interaction out here as I have done the last three years.
What I do like is that you open up the outposts for 48 hours. I can see my isk growing even bigger when we have the buy and buildrace before the final fight.
/Pursche
CEO
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6658
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 06:28:19 -
[3963] - Quote
Pursche wrote:ok So you had about 3800 posts from pvpers here. Now you got one from a renter and industialist. I live in 0.0 with a small corp. I pay my rent and have been doing so for the last three yers to different sov holders. I do not care who owns the systems as long as I can dock and sell everything I make out here. I do not care how they/you hold or take sov But I really dislikes when CCP is going to take my SBU- Bpo away and give me a few isk and then I need to go to the dreadfull Empire to get the new Entosis Bpo. So wake up and just change my Bpo to the other one and let me do my Planetary interaction out here as I have done the last three years. What I do like is that you open up the outposts for 48 hours. I can see my isk growing even bigger when we have the buy and buildrace before the final fight. Oooh northern associates.
I look forward to seeing you guys very soon...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Mona Lissa
Die Schar des Schwarzen Herzogs
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 07:18:29 -
[3964] - Quote
If the stations are each separated from the sovereignty, which still speaks against allowing multiple stations in a system ? Consequently, you should then allow building up multiple station in a 0.0 system.. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 10:00:02 -
[3965] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Pursche wrote:ok So you had about 3800 posts from pvpers here. Now you got one from a renter and industialist. I live in 0.0 with a small corp. I pay my rent and have been doing so for the last three yers to different sov holders. I do not care who owns the systems as long as I can dock and sell everything I make out here. I do not care how they/you hold or take sov But I really dislikes when CCP is going to take my SBU- Bpo away and give me a few isk and then I need to go to the dreadfull Empire to get the new Entosis Bpo. So wake up and just change my Bpo to the other one and let me do my Planetary interaction out here as I have done the last three years. What I do like is that you open up the outposts for 48 hours. I can see my isk growing even bigger when we have the buy and buildrace before the final fight. Oooh northern associates. I look forward to seeing you guys very soon... Our little corp is moving right now - Guess where to
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
891
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 10:11:21 -
[3966] - Quote
Mona Lissa wrote:If the stations are each separated from the sovereignty, which still speaks against allowing multiple stations in a system ? Consequently, you should then allow building up multiple station in a 0.0 system..
Sadly, their new system is going to pretty-much forbid it. Unless they code it right (heh, CCP), and future-proof it for this eventuality (and since they specifically have said they are keeping one station per system, they probably aren't doing that) they probably can't have two stations in a single system because odds-are, the capture nodes wont be able to differentiate between which station they represent. Imagine if both stations are rf'ed at the same time, (something that is going to be more likely to occur than less, since if you can rf the first without interruption, why wouldn't you do the other as well) is it going to be possible to tell which node is for which station? |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 12:42:23 -
[3967] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
To recap:
1st phase we made it impossible to project force.
2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.
IDK. More overhead to keep sovereignty during idle times because something can change in 5 hours. That should actually let biggest alliances stomp small fry out completely. Small alliances WILL have 5+ hour lulls in logons and cannot sustain extra mid-nite emergency logons long versus even a low scale assault. Given a 5+ hours dominance they will lose stations and never get them back because...
you only need to interrupt that station service takeover for a few minutes once every 5 hours. Given that small alliances by definition aren't normally fielding big forces, a very modest fleet to any of the big alliances today should be able to protect whole constellations as long as it keeps moving on to next alert. Only necessary during any lull in logon times though (e.g. 600-1100 EVE time). And after first attack you know which small fry alliances need ambushed and exterminated. Take their station and burn their POS and they will have hard time staging attacks nearby.
So biggest downside for large alliance is need for small scale semi combat-oriented fleets in off-peak hours and the loss of some idle time incomes. Moves by medium and larger alliances/coalitions will probably be much the same except there will be more system swapping on a daily/weekly basis.
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 13:00:18 -
[3968] - Quote
If you change the station services mechanics slightly you will reduce the ability of huge alliances to shuffle a single skirmish fleet around to protect 1+ constellations. Potentially bad if they are merely denying use and don't really use systems themselves much.
Specifically instead of defender being able to RESET 5 hour attack clock to ZERO with a mere few minutes of dominance over station service control...
how about setting back attack clock a much lesser amount?
Say 15 minutes plus however long defenders hold the advantage
(small bonus avoids strong defender intentionally pulsing effort several times so that they can leave for hours to some other duty before they need to return).
True this will also make it harder for small alliances to defend especially versus much larger alliances. But at least whoever has control will be an alliance with lots of people continuously in that system -- instead of only a roving and very briefly seen bigger hammer. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 13:12:53 -
[3969] - Quote
Udonor wrote:If you change the station services mechanics slightly you will reduce the ability of huge alliances to shuffle a single skirmish fleet around to protect 1+ constellations. Potentially bad if they are merely denying use and don't really use systems themselves much.
Specifically instead of defender being able to RESET 5 hour attack clock to ZERO with a mere few minutes of dominance over station service control...
how about setting back attack clock a much lesser amount?
Say 15 minutes plus however long defenders hold the advantage
(small bonus avoids strong defender intentionally pulsing effort several times so that they can leave for hours to some other duty before they need to return).
True this will also make it harder for small alliances to defend especially versus much larger alliances. But at least whoever has control will be an alliance with lots of people continuously in that system -- instead of only a roving and very briefly seen bigger hammer.
Oh and the 5 hours must be accumulated within 8-12 hours ( or maybe only 3 hours within 8 hours) showing a clear margin of dominance without becoming a true marathon.
Maybe any failed attempt to get however many hours dominance over station service controls should result in defenders becoming immune to that alliance's attacks for the remainder of 24 hours (AI immune system effect). This depends on how much you want to favor small alliances retaining control since huge alliances are certainly much better able to sustain attacks around the clock for days. Maybe not the same level of attack but certainly enough to overwhelm small alliances as soon as they slack off peak efforts.
(Why do I care? ROFLAMO - station battles will be great opportunities for 3rd parties to ***** KMs. Free to snipe with little chance of any major diversion of forces unless one side is being totally crushed. Crushing forces are far less like to be present since most of the past advantages are negated. Crushing forces don't make takeover or defense go any faster. ) |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 13:43:53 -
[3970] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Mona Lissa wrote:If the stations are each separated from the sovereignty, which still speaks against allowing multiple stations in a system ? Consequently, you should then allow building up multiple station in a 0.0 system.. Sadly, their new system is going to pretty-much forbid it. Unless they code it right (heh, CCP), and future-proof it for this eventuality (and since they specifically have said they are keeping one station per system, they probably aren't doing that) they probably can't have two stations in a single system because odds-are, the capture nodes wont be able to differentiate between which station they represent. Imagine if both stations are rf'ed at the same time, (something that is going to be more likely to occur than less, since if you can rf the first without interruption, why wouldn't you do the other as well) is it going to be possible to tell which node is for which station? With the relative ease with which stations can be lost, Why would anyone but the biggest groups want more than 1 station? I wouldn't expect to see anyone other than the biggest coalitions building outposts. The big groups are pretty much immune to loss with the new mini games as numbers will always win.
No individual alliance will build outposts. There is no value in them when they are so easily flipped and the whole aspect of attackers being able to live in the system/station with all the advantages of the sov holders only makes it less appealing to spend the isk building an outpost for anyone not aligned to one of the big coalitions.
As the coalitions settle on what sov they want to keep and what they can't be bothered with, we are likely to see a few outposts go up in desirable systems. Aside from that, unless the price of an outpost drops by about 80%, they won't get built. Risk vs Reward - Build an outpost, you take all the risk for little reward.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 14:23:53 -
[3971] - Quote
I do love the Summer 2015 proposal for TCU.
Simply the biggest most expensive and pointless secured can message ever!! A challenge to fleet PVP and nothing more. Purity!
But in case they don't replace Mobile Depot and secured cans on those merits alone...
Here are some suggested enhancements that remain fairly pointless in terms of game advantage
(1) Adds Owning Alliance MOTD to Local channel (trash talk broadcast)
(a) Age secured options -- level of MOTD available varies by age (b) Obscenity secured options -- MOTD available varies by user set options (default to safe) on religious, racial, and other criteria for language filtering.
(2) As above except (meta 1?) forces zoom on TCU and billboard display of uploaded static graphic (Empire-Interbus upload fee?)
(3) As above except (meta 3?) uploaded animated GIF displayed (aurum fee per mega displayed?)
Game altering enhancement
(1) Allow TCU to mess with local chat due to alliance owning system long range transponder scanners etc Only owning alliance has normal Local Chat info (including names in D Scan)
(a) Ultimate form (T3) -- everyone else permanently limited to text & time stamp (not even portraits i.e. "audio" only)
(b) Basic Headcount (T1) - portraits show but no names & no character info link & no pilot standing type flags but otherwise "video-convo" works normally (portrait matches posted chat) specifically you can see how many toons are in system & personal face recognition works
(c) WH to outsiders (T2) -- everyone else gets degraded WH experience of waiting for people to speak so you can see even portrait. Worse ID and character info link still suppressed after speaking
More a detriment to individual and poorly organized fleets in someone else's territory. Pretty easy to compensate with fleet comm and a few scouts watching hull type info. Although its harder to tell if ships under POS are vacant or occupied, that disadvantage is probably well countered by such tactics making more prize ships available when POS shields go down.
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 14:44:00 -
[3972] - Quote
TCU TCU
why buy the proposed Summer 2015 TCU?
What separates it from simple secured can or mobile depot message? Other than name on a map.
Would a simple audio alert message to owning members in system about hostiles or neutrals be worth something? Maybe for folk absorbed in some task or with too many open windows blocking chat or overview?
How about part of ISK value donated to charity?
Fitting scans of ship passing systems gates? (Not terribly useful during mass invasion but versus small annoying roams?)
Rough cloaked ship location via vast array of system sensors and massive computer analysis of minute distortions? (Slow scan version would put focus on AFK and fairly stationary spies & leave mostly unaffected all actively piloted, frequently moved ships. Well as long as they had enough safe points and didn't fall into fixed patterns. )
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 14:50:11 -
[3973] - Quote
Nope I did not forget that the Summer 2015 proposal has fights over control points for the TCU. That I guess is different than Secure Can or Mobile Depot with message stating readiness to fight over use of a system (or just fight). But not much in a positive way.
I guess I am just remembering how FW got a boost once there were rewards for winning control of system. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6666
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 21:56:20 -
[3974] - Quote
Udonor wrote:Nope I did not forget that the Summer 2015 proposal has fights over control points for the TCU. That I guess is different than Secure Can or Mobile Depot with message stating readiness to fight over use of a system (or just fight). But not much in a positive way.
I guess I am just remembering how FW got a boost once there were rewards for winning control of system. But then we'd farm it (like FW is farmed) and nullsec is already just BURSTING AT THE SEAMS WITH RICHES
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
ckinoutdahoe
Void.Tech Get Off My Lawn
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 22:18:39 -
[3975] - Quote
I really wonder if CCP reads all of these posts or just does a glance over?
Do you as CCP understand the concequences of what you are thinking of implimenting?
Ok, my typing my not be great tonight but I want to place my responce.
Please read post 22 and 27 twice and come back here as most of what they have to say would be a reiteration in part.
Now then to the next stuff........
You are completely destroying the mining industry in high sec and further more mineral prices for the ore there will plummet.
People who mine with all of their accounts and pay for plex in this manner will be highly irate.
How about all of those to include myself who own one or a ton of super capital bpo's that have taken the time and isk to max out these massively expensive bpo's?
Further more you just killed a major arm of industry that buys high sec ore.
For the PvP members who have spent ten's billions or hundreds of billions for the SUPER toys and pay for in a lot of cases a special account for them since you can not dock these massive ships.
Now these Super toys are now basically space junk.
We as members of this great game have asked you in this massive forum posting to rethink what you are planning to do.
How about alliances that have spent 30 billion on making those stations and the tens of billions for each upgrade?
To be taken by noobs with a thing that can go on a sub cap....... are you for real???? seriously!!!!!!!
Make a Titan or Super put on that thing ............the eso what ever link. We want fights not lameness.
As far as Supers being a command ship???? really !!!!! 20ish bill for a hull plus billions more for high end mods.
***********************************************************************************************************************************
What would I consider to do in place of this?
Consider making eve 5x bigger on an outer ring of current null. Make the rats there as hard or harder than the sleepers for decent fight. You can then allocate moons in a fashion that is more or less equalized
Give us a damn challenge. We tire of the lameness that caters to the lame.
Before changes are made please fix index's, a promise you have made years ago......When is that happening? Make it so.
With the nerf on jump range you made it especially hard for those living in the far reaches of eve like the north east and south east. For those that control the inner fringe you will not get any or many that will have interest in the far end as you intended.
I for one hope that you consider all the information and take it to heart. |
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
406
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 23:30:01 -
[3976] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:
- Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
- Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
- Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
- Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
- Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
Answering these based on the blog and Fozzie's interview on the EveDownUnder radio show.
1. The command nodes are anomalies and will be found on the probe window, overview, and sensor overlay. They are immediately warpable to, you don't need to scan them down with probes.
2. If you are not contested, you will win the timer with 10 nodes. If contested, then the amount of nodes will be more based on equations and calculations they have not released, and that it'll be some sort of hidden points system. You won't know the exact number you will need to capture, but your progress on capturing will be visible in the system (kind of like the incursion progress bar, but it'll be in a sovereignty window and on the system info you see in upper left corner in every system).
3. No.
4. I could be misunderstanding this some, but it is my understanding that if you break target lock with the entosis link, you will still have to wait out the cycle before you can warp, receive reps, etc. Capture progress stops when you break target lock.
5. I don't know if the individual nodes have a visible timer
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1506
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 23:36:03 -
[3977] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Sadly, their new system is going to pretty-much forbid it. Unless they code it right (heh, CCP), and future-proof it for this eventuality (and since they specifically have said they are keeping one station per system, they probably aren't doing that) they probably can't have two stations in a single system because odds-are, the capture nodes wont be able to differentiate between which station they represent. Imagine if both stations are rf'ed at the same time, (something that is going to be more likely to occur than less, since if you can rf the first without interruption, why wouldn't you do the other as well) is it going to be possible to tell which node is for which station?
What if you don't have to? Instead of a flat 1000 points (per CCP Fozzie's example) change it to 1000 points x # of stations, and use the existing point/spawn system to get to the total. Once the victor has accumulated X thousand points, all the stations are saved.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
D'vorien
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 04:32:27 -
[3978] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Sadly, their new system is going to pretty-much forbid it. Unless they code it right (heh, CCP), and future-proof it for this eventuality (and since they specifically have said they are keeping one station per system, they probably aren't doing that) they probably can't have two stations in a single system because odds-are, the capture nodes wont be able to differentiate between which station they represent. Imagine if both stations are rf'ed at the same time, (something that is going to be more likely to occur than less, since if you can rf the first without interruption, why wouldn't you do the other as well) is it going to be possible to tell which node is for which station? What if you don't have to? Instead of a flat 1000 points (per CCP Fozzie's example) change it to 1000 points x # of stations, and use the existing point/spawn system to get to the total. Once the victor has accumulated X thousand points, all the stations are saved.
I don't see any technical reason they cannot have two stations in the same system. Every item in the game has a unique ID, and the control nodes will almost certainly reference that ID, and be entirely unambiguous.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/64-bits-should-be-enough-for-everybody/
Whether there is good gameplay sense to it, or if there needs to be changes made to an interface we don't have details for yet, I don't know. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
478
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 05:36:42 -
[3979] - Quote
Greygal wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:
- Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
- Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
- Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
- Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
- Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
Answering these based on the blog and Fozzie's interview on the EveDownUnder radio show. 1. The command nodes are anomalies and will be found on the probe window, overview, and sensor overlay. They are immediately warpable to, you don't need to scan them down with probes. 2. If you are not contested, you will win the timer with 10 nodes. If contested, then the amount of nodes will be more based on equations and calculations they have not released, and that it'll be some sort of hidden points system. You won't know the exact number you will need to capture, but your progress on capturing will be visible in the system (kind of like the incursion progress bar, but it'll be in a sovereignty window and on the system info you see in upper left corner in every system). 3. No. 4. I could be misunderstanding this some, but it is my understanding that if you break target lock with the entosis link, you will still have to wait out the cycle before you can warp, receive reps, etc. Capture progress stops when you break target lock. 5. I don't know if the individual nodes have a visible timer
Thanks for the effort, still waiting for CCP answers. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 05:52:41 -
[3980] - Quote
There are several aspects in the proposal that could make taking and holding sov very interesting, which are currently geared to specifically suit "biggest group wins"
Quote: When a target structure does not have a current owner, every alliance represents their own GÇ£sideGÇ¥ and all characters are capable of making progress towards capturing it at the same rate. When a target Sovereignty structure has a current owner, the system recognizes two sides (the current owning alliance on one side and everyone else on the other). Enables large groups to easily overthrow a small group, where it should be; "Whether or not a structure has an owner, EACH ALLIANCE represents its own side." Owners Entosis links are 1 side, Each other Entosis link represents the alliance it belongs to For each alliance with an active entosis link, it creates a new capture whether the structure has an owner or not.. Automatically removes the ability of coalitions to use allies to take sov for each other directly. Allies can form skirmish fleets to keep others away from capture points but not directly participate in the capture using Entosis Links.
Quote: The result of all these design features is that the best method to exert control over a structure with the Entosis Link is to establish effective military control over the grid around the target structure. The result is; he who can bring the most Entosis links and biggest blob exerts control. Entosis links should be a minor but integral part of the capture process. If an Entosis link can be fit to anything, simply bringing more than your opponent can will win the day. Entosis Links are to be the defining aspect of taking and holding sov, the ability to use them and fitting requirements should be equal to their importance. Not just a throw away module that can be fit to anything. - - - - Suggestion; Fitting requirements the same as warfare links The attributes from the Bastion module, with the exception of weapons systems which are disabled while Entosis is active. So you have good tanking ability but no offensive capability while entosis links are active.
T1 Entosis - T1 Battle cruiser (4 min cycle time) & Carrier (+100% cycle time) T2 Entosis - Command Ship (2 min cycle time) & Super Carrier/Titan (+400% cycle time)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quote:To disable a station service, anyone other than the alliance that owns the station must apply an Entosis link directly to the targetable station service. The capture mechanic for station services is exactly the same as for any other structure, except that station services activate and deactivate in half the time that Sov structures reinforce or capture. A small gang of griefers comes through outside an alliances prime time, RF's station services easily, when there is few members on to defend their sov because the alliance is geared to protect its assets during the specified prime time not 12 hours later. That alliance now has an uphill battle to restore station services AND protect sov structures during the next prime time.
Quote:Although reinforcing of Sovereignty structures may only occur during the owning allianceGÇÖs prime time window, station services can be disabled at any time through use of the Entosis Link for between 5 and 20 minutes (depending on occupancy levels). Just plain silly. Removes the need to take sov, all you need do is force the sov holders out of the station. It also turns "prime time" into a major joke. Why spend the extra time RFing minor structures like the ihub and TCU when simply RFing station services will serve the same purpose and is not tied to the rest of the mini game mechanic? It can be done at any time by anyone. For your proposed mini game and prime time to be valid it needs to incorporate ALL of sov.
Quote: Stations will now have part of the Sovereignty upkeep cost that was previously attached to the TCU. Stations are to become part of the sov structure yet are not governed by the same game mechanics as the rest of sov?
You want sov battles to be held at specified times each day but don't include a mechanic that makes fighting for sov viable for anyone other than the biggest groups. Then to top it off you make one of the most valuable aspects of holding sov (the station) vulnerable in a way contrary to everything else about holding and taking sov.
I'm convinced this is just a bunch of employees throwing out ideas between deciding who gets the next round in. Then someone put it all together and said - Hey this will work, lets do it.
There is an opportunity here to make the whole sovereignty system mean something, PLEASE don't waste it.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
97
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 09:51:04 -
[3981] - Quote
Sgt Ocker
How thick are you?
Numbers SHOULD ALWAYS have a edge. If fleet 1 has 50 and fleet 2 has 75 and both in identical ships, skills and FC, the bigger should ALWAYS win. However the skills and tactiques will somewhat even the odds up.
atm. we are in a situation, that once the 500 or so big blob has arrived, the tactiques and skills dont matter if you are in the 100 fleet. You will loose. Now, lets take the new fountain war as an example. N3+BL are able to get maybe 500ish dudes to fleet and goons maybe 1k. Now, N3+BL have their 500 dudes in atleast 4 different fleets, where goons have their 1k in 4 different fleets. Banging head on on one grid the 500 men will loose. Now spilt the objectives up to 5 different systems and we have a totally different scenario all of sudden. N3 having 4 125 man fleets and goons 4 250 fleets in four different places. Even the odds are still 1:2 it's totally takeable to fight with 125 dudes vs 250 dudes. Especially when taking to concideration, that CFC superstar FC's wont be in all systems simultaneousily doing the fleets, where n3+bl have a way bigger FC pool.
And no, the Entosis link is as it's best, if it can be fitted on literally anything. Limiting it to warfare links is just an artificial border.
and ps. Please CCP give us destructable stations. Really badly needed. We are almost having a station on half of the null systems already. Most of whitch are totally unused or used by few lads building something there. DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS! |
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:21:56 -
[3982] - Quote
Ugly Eric wrote:Sgt Ocker
How thick are you?
Numbers SHOULD ALWAYS have a edge. If fleet 1 has 50 and fleet 2 has 75 and both in identical ships, skills and FC, the bigger should ALWAYS win. However the skills and tactiques will somewhat even the odds up.
atm. we are in a situation, that once the 500 or so big blob has arrived, the tactiques and skills dont matter if you are in the 100 fleet. You will loose. Now, lets take the new fountain war as an example. N3+BL are able to get maybe 500ish dudes to fleet and goons maybe 1k. Now, N3+BL have their 500 dudes in atleast 4 different fleets, where goons have their 1k in 4 different fleets. Banging head on on one grid the 500 men will loose. Now spilt the objectives up to 5 different systems and we have a totally different scenario all of sudden. N3 having 4 125 man fleets and goons 4 250 fleets in four different places. Even the odds are still 1:2 it's totally takeable to fight with 125 dudes vs 250 dudes. Especially when taking to concideration, that CFC superstar FC's wont be in all systems simultaneousily doing the fleets, where n3+bl have a way bigger FC pool.
And no, the Entosis link is as it's best, if it can be fitted on literally anything. Limiting it to warfare links is just an artificial border.
and ps. Please CCP give us destructable stations. Really badly needed. We are almost having a station on half of the null systems already. Most of whitch are totally unused or used by few lads building something there. DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS!
Infact we need destroyable stations. If we don't want the freeport we need to destroy the own station by ourself.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:27:42 -
[3983] - Quote
Ugly Eric wrote:Sgt Ocker
How thick are you?
Numbers SHOULD ALWAYS have a edge. If fleet 1 has 50 and fleet 2 has 75 and both in identical ships, skills and FC, the bigger should ALWAYS win. However the skills and tactiques will somewhat even the odds up.
atm. we are in a situation, that once the 500 or so big blob has arrived, the tactiques and skills dont matter if you are in the 100 fleet. You will loose. Now, lets take the new fountain war as an example. N3+BL are able to get maybe 500ish dudes to fleet and goons maybe 1k. Now, N3+BL have their 500 dudes in atleast 4 different fleets, where goons have their 1k in 4 different fleets. Banging head on on one grid the 500 men will loose. Now spilt the objectives up to 5 different systems and we have a totally different scenario all of sudden. N3 having 4 125 man fleets and goons 4 250 fleets in four different places. Even the odds are still 1:2 it's totally takeable to fight with 125 dudes vs 250 dudes. Especially when taking to concideration, that CFC superstar FC's wont be in all systems simultaneousily doing the fleets, where n3+bl have a way bigger FC pool.
And no, the Entosis link is as it's best, if it can be fitted on literally anything. Limiting it to warfare links is just an artificial border.
and ps. Please CCP give us destructable stations. Really badly needed. We are almost having a station on half of the null systems already. Most of whitch are totally unused or used by few lads building something there. DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS! Name calling? Seems you ran out of any decent argument and had to resort to childish behaviour. Trying to compare what is happening today in nul to how the new system is likely to play out, is like trying to compare it to how it was 10 years ago. To be honest, BL found a lightly defended section of space controlled by an alliance that has enough internal problems to sink the titanic and decided to capitalize by invading. More power to them, that is what sov wars should be, not a series of mini games.
Yes larger numbers should always win but your analogy is far from what i am talking about.. Again you skimmed and responded to what you thought I wrote and missed the point completely. (You seem to be good at doing that) My proposal removes, to a point the ability of a coalition to just steamroll a smaller alliance. It makes the Entosis link a command module, as that is what it will be (the most powerful command module in the game). The criteria for its use should be meaningful. Not some throw away module on a throw away ship.
Your in a 700 man alliance, who do you think the targets will be for the mega coalitions, with thousands of bored members, when these changes go live? Coalitions like Goons/CFC, BL/N3 or an alliance like TRI?
CCP has an opportunity here to make a difference to how large groups interact with others. If your too thick to understand what I am trying to convey, then maybe it is better CCP don't bother listening to players and these feedback threads stay simple lip service.
If you believe the scenario you painted of BL/N3 vs CFC you are deluded. What makes you think the CFC is only going to field 4 X 250 man fleets? BL/N3 aren't stupid and isn't going to go on the offensive until they have the numbers. Or more likely, they just won't fight each other at all on any large enough scale to risk losing anything worthwhile.
And if you honestly believe the Entosis link should be allowed to be the ultimate troll module and introduced as it is proposed, then i would start packing for your alliances move back to lowsec.
Destructible stations and ease of proposed RF mechanic, which would lead to destruction - You would soon end up with only the biggest groups owning stations and everyone else living in pos's or npc nul. Loads more undesirable sov systems sounds like just the ticket to get smaller groups into nul. Does your alliance have 80 to 100 bil laying around to replace a station when you lose it? The way the mechanic is proposed, no-one has to take your sov, just camp your station and keep it RF'd. Make them destructible and you can keep your sov on the backside of nul, you just won't have a station to live in. Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.
Yes I am aware TRI is a small griefing alliance and the module as it is may suit your play style well. Until it is used against you that is, then you simply have everything to lose.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
889
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:47:51 -
[3984] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:Ugly Eric wrote: and ps. Please CCP give us destructable stations. Really badly needed. We are almost having a station on half of the null systems already. Most of whitch are totally unused or used by few lads building something there. DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS!
Infact we need destroyable stations. If we don't want the freeport we need to destroy the own station by ourself.
Destructible stations will be the final nail in the coffin for sovereign space outside of the largest blobs.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:58:38 -
[3985] - Quote
The real sov system: The owner of a system is the corp that has the most activity and pays the ccp tax.
Advantages: This system is easy to understand and easy to modify. This will move many highsec corp's into null. Even more if you push the low systems. Provide a way for weekend and part time player to live in null. Remove the need of 1000+ battles (including supercapitals). Remove renting fee's. Remove the 'blue donut'. Bring back industry to null (because of more customers). The larger group will win only if they intend to live in the target systems. Bring thousands of possible targets into null. Make eve attractive for new and newborn player. They won't hear 'don't go to null' all the time if they ask in helpchat.
Disadvantages: Remove the need of 1000+ battles (including supercapitals).
Btw. converting every sov null into npc null would be by far better than this sov phase 2.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
516
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 14:19:14 -
[3986] - Quote
Some updates on null-sec from Fozzie's fanfest presentation:
- Volume of ihubs and upgrades will be dramatically reduced, with most fitting into a DST (although strategic upgrades will be 200k)
- Structures can be launched from Fleet Hangars (yay DSTs)
- There will be blueprints for ihub upgrades, allowing them to be built in null-sec
- New null-sec only ores to produce a better balance of minerals
- The military index will decay faster, and the Industry index will decay much more slowly.
All these are changes are due in the April 28 patch. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 17:24:41 -
[3987] - Quote
xttz wrote:Some updates on null-sec from Fozzie's fanfest presentation:
- Volume of ihubs and upgrades will be dramatically reduced, with most fitting into a DST (although strategic upgrades will be 200k)
- Structures can be launched from Fleet Hangars (yay DSTs)
- There will be blueprints for ihub upgrades, allowing them to be built in null-sec
- New null-sec only ores to produce a better balance of minerals
- The military index will decay faster, and the Industry index will decay much more slowly.
All these are changes are due in the April 28 patch. Good old Fozzie - Breaking Eve 1 patch at a time.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
889
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 18:27:55 -
[3988] - Quote
xttz wrote:Some updates on null-sec from Fozzie's fanfest presentation:
- Volume of ihubs and upgrades will be dramatically reduced, with most fitting into a DST (although strategic upgrades will be 200k)
- Structures can be launched from Fleet Hangars (yay DSTs)
- There will be blueprints for ihub upgrades, allowing them to be built in null-sec
- New null-sec only ores to produce a better balance of minerals
- The military index will decay faster, and the Industry index will decay much more slowly.
All these are changes are due in the April 28 patch.
Thank you for posting some updates.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2133
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 19:32:10 -
[3989] - Quote
anyone have a link to the video? |
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
56
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 19:54:28 -
[3990] - Quote
Rowells wrote:anyone have a link to the video?
http://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/EVE%20Online
there you will find it
and it seems that ccp really needs this sh... sov system for further development.
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 23:04:05 -
[3991] - Quote
This isn't a full replay? It seems to start in the middle of CCP plugging out of game paraphernalia. Which I believe occurred after the keynote presentations.
.,.Would have been so much better without the TS commentary so you could hear what presenters were saying.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 23:27:14 -
[3992] - Quote
If you want to watch the keynote without background commentary;
Keynote from CCP TV
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Jobbered
Lost Legion Of Death Help Newbes Find a Way Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 04:41:59 -
[3993] - Quote
That is 2014 Keynote
|
Ereilian
Mythic Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor
77
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 19:53:26 -
[3994] - Quote
xttz wrote:Some updates on null-sec from Fozzie's fanfest presentation:
- Volume of ihubs and upgrades will be dramatically reduced, with most fitting into a DST (although strategic upgrades will be 200k)
- Structures can be launched from Fleet Hangars (yay DSTs)
- There will be blueprints for ihub upgrades, allowing them to be built in null-sec
- New null-sec only ores to produce a better balance of minerals
- The military index will decay faster, and the Industry index will decay much more slowly.
All these are changes are due in the April 28 patch.
Interesting.
Mining buff is way overdue, time to see those highsec mining bears screaming a little. I actually cannot find fault there Fozzie. |
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
408
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 01:25:55 -
[3995] - Quote
Rowells wrote:anyone have a link to the video?
Day 1 replay is here: http://www.twitch.tv/ccp/b/638754943 Day 2 replay is here: http://www.twitch.tv/ccp/b/639159817
Check the stream schedule at the bottom of the main CCP Twitch page (http://www.twitch.tv/ccp) to find approximate time stamps for the various streams.
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 06:14:42 -
[3996] - Quote
Ereilian wrote:xttz wrote:Some updates on null-sec from Fozzie's fanfest presentation:
- Volume of ihubs and upgrades will be dramatically reduced, with most fitting into a DST (although strategic upgrades will be 200k)
- Structures can be launched from Fleet Hangars (yay DSTs)
- There will be blueprints for ihub upgrades, allowing them to be built in null-sec
- New null-sec only ores to produce a better balance of minerals
- The military index will decay faster, and the Industry index will decay much more slowly.
All these are changes are due in the April 28 patch. Interesting. Mining buff is way overdue, time to see those highsec mining bears screaming a little. I actually cannot find fault there Fozzie.
Sites still warpable by anyone with a pulse, hide them behind an ~effort~ wall like they were pre-Oddessy and I might be impressed. Not a second before.
|
Praddy
Aquilia Cohors Praetoria Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 09:44:10 -
[3997] - Quote
The main problem which I see is that CCP attempts to introduce a fundamental change to one of the basic basic principles of the game paly. I am not saying it is bad. I am saying that it is too massive and sudden. Most, if not all of the players in Eve will have difficult time coping with it. And given that Eve has introduced too many changes during less than 6 months, not giving everyone sufficient time to adjust, this new change delivers additional stress to everybody. The stress that nobody really wants or needs.
I have no doubt, that yes, Sov system does need some adjustments. But do it carefully. There were many years of gameplay, when this system was mostly intact, and most of the Corporations and players got used to it. Chagin geverything at once - this looks like a very stupid idea. Do you really want to create a havoc in Eve universe? You are very close to it.
I propose to completely revisit the concept of introducing the change. Make it a step-by-step process, and extend it to at least a year. And keep on with wide discussion on planning and results of every step. And have guts to make a reverse, if you see that something completely bad goes on. Reverse it BEFORE the consequences of your change are beyond the point of non-return.
And as a bottom line, on a personal side, I don't like and I don't support this change, in a way it is introduced to us now. I guess I am not the only one. |
Praddy
Aquilia Cohors Praetoria Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 11:15:34 -
[3998] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Aiwha wrote:Can we just bring back the POS grind? I miss the POS grind. Lets just go with POS grind and call it even. How about we just ******* trash the idea of sov rebalance altogether. It's broken, but what was worse about it was the fact that nobody wanted to do it anymore while CCP held the impending rebalance over our heads for the past 2-3 years.
I think this is the best thing to do. Drop this stupid idea, period.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
894
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:12:36 -
[3999] - Quote
Praddy wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Aiwha wrote:Can we just bring back the POS grind? I miss the POS grind. Lets just go with POS grind and call it even. How about we just ******* trash the idea of sov rebalance altogether. It's broken, but what was worse about it was the fact that nobody wanted to do it anymore while CCP held the impending rebalance over our heads for the past 2-3 years. I think this is the best thing to do. Drop this stupid idea, period.
Too much pride has been invested in it for them to drop it.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:20:25 -
[4000] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Praddy wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Aiwha wrote:Can we just bring back the POS grind? I miss the POS grind. Lets just go with POS grind and call it even. How about we just ******* trash the idea of sov rebalance altogether. It's broken, but what was worse about it was the fact that nobody wanted to do it anymore while CCP held the impending rebalance over our heads for the past 2-3 years. I think this is the best thing to do. Drop this stupid idea, period. Too much pride has been invested in it for them to drop it. This isn't about pride (maybe it is a bit), it is about try to keep an ever diminishing player base coming back and logging in and finding the 2 in every 100 to signup that stay longer than a couple of months.
Instead of turning Sov Nul into a part of New Eden that is driven by wars and ongoing conflict, they decided to go the opposite way and encourage large groups to get larger by introducing a sov system that is broken into multiple mini games which will require multiple fleets to maintain.
Any group not aligned with one of the large coalitions will only have sov as long as the large coalitions allow them to (large groups of bored members will make short work of any small unaligned group). We might even see new coalitions form as time goes on but with the ability to move about in nulsec limited by jump range and already established blue networks any new group trying to enter into the sov mini game will find the barriers to entry out way any possible benefits.
It is pretty much a requirement for an alliance to hold at least one station to maintain sov but with no way for smaller groups to defend their stations and the ease with which they can be disabled. CCP just broke the most fundamental part of living in sov nul.
They have not met their stated goals and if the proposed sov changes are implemented in their current form, CCP has just lied to players (again) by stating goals they have no intention of meeting.
My remaining paid subs expire in 3 months, at this stage I can't see the need to renew them. When a company employs people who will stand up in front of a live audience and lie to them, it is time to decide whether that company is worth dealing with. Fozzie, can't tell the difference between a Tengu and a Rokh and uses one to show the attributes of the other. How can players trust someone who continues to "balance" things to suit his friends. Game balance isn't a popularity quest and as long as Fozzie continues to change eve to suit friends it will continue to be less and less playable for everyone else.
Players don't need to find ways to break eve, there are a few devs (encouraged by "friends") doing it for them.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Starry Enigma
The Graduates Forged of Fire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:43:58 -
[4001] - Quote
If you are really going to make all these new changes, why not just make a new game? We keep our skills and isk and stuff and join that new game. See how many people join that. And see how many don't join that.
Tweaking here and there is fine, but the proposal is revamping this game. I'm personally against this. |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2760
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 07:01:17 -
[4002] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Instead of turning Sov Nul into a part of New Eden that is driven by wars and ongoing conflict, they decided to go the opposite way and encourage large groups to get larger by introducing a sov system that is broken into multiple mini games which will require multiple fleets to maintain.
Any group not aligned with one of the large coalitions will only have sov as long as the large coalitions allow them to (large groups of bored members will make short work of any small unaligned group). We might even see new coalitions form as time goes on but with the ability to move about in nulsec limited by jump range and already established blue networks any new group trying to enter into the sov mini game will find the barriers to entry out way any possible benefits.
Yup TOTALLY not like how it has been for the last years , nope totally not.
I said it before , as long as you do not change the numbersgame you won't change the endresult.
As the French saying goes : plus +ºa change, plus c'est la m+¬me chose . Translated it means that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
It is normal that the biggest force has the upperhand a lot of the times but the amount of people we have been throwing on one bunch the last years is just ridiculous.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 13:25:51 -
[4003] - Quote
flakeys wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
Instead of turning Sov Nul into a part of New Eden that is driven by wars and ongoing conflict, they decided to go the opposite way and encourage large groups to get larger by introducing a sov system that is broken into multiple mini games which will require multiple fleets to maintain.
Any group not aligned with one of the large coalitions will only have sov as long as the large coalitions allow them to (large groups of bored members will make short work of any small unaligned group). We might even see new coalitions form as time goes on but with the ability to move about in nulsec limited by jump range and already established blue networks any new group trying to enter into the sov mini game will find the barriers to entry out way any possible benefits.
Yup TOTALLY not like how it has been for the last years , nope totally not. I said it before , as long as you do not change the numbersgame you won't change the endresult. As the French saying goes : plus +ºa change, plus c'est la m+¬me chose . Translated it means that the more things change, the more they stay the same. It is normal that the biggest force has the upperhand a lot of the times but the amount of people we have been throwing on one bunch the last years is just ridiculous. Sadly you are spot on, nothing will be the same, except the outcome. And the really sad thing is, CCP has a golden opportunity to make valid and worthwhile balance changes with the new sov system and have chosen to take the easy way out.
Yes the whole way sov is taken and held is changing but will it change the way the sov game plays out. No it can't possibly do that because CCP is afraid of the big coalitions and the repercussions of upsetting them with valid / meaningful change. CCP have lost control of all sovereignty aspects of the game and instead of trying to fix it, simply change it to make it seem different. Bottom line is - Nothing will change.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
300
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 13:32:00 -
[4004] - Quote
flakeys wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
Instead of turning Sov Nul into a part of New Eden that is driven by wars and ongoing conflict, they decided to go the opposite way and encourage large groups to get larger by introducing a sov system that is broken into multiple mini games which will require multiple fleets to maintain.
Any group not aligned with one of the large coalitions will only have sov as long as the large coalitions allow them to (large groups of bored members will make short work of any small unaligned group). We might even see new coalitions form as time goes on but with the ability to move about in nulsec limited by jump range and already established blue networks any new group trying to enter into the sov mini game will find the barriers to entry out way any possible benefits.
Yup TOTALLY not like how it has been for the last years , nope totally not. I said it before , as long as you do not change the numbersgame you won't change the endresult. As the French saying goes : plus +ºa change, plus c'est la m+¬me chose . Translated it means that the more things change, the more they stay the same. This new system is not intended to bust up the Huge Coalitions, its to provide entertainment for them. If you want to introduce Real Conflict to Null you must take away the reasons and incentives for them to exist. Regardless of this new system Null sec will remain a joke in its present state its is candyland, laughable at best untill CCP actual does does something about it. Hold your Breath. It is normal that the biggest force has the upperhand a lot of the times but the amount of people we have been throwing on one bunch the last years is just ridiculous.
......................................................
|
Elayae
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc The 11th Hour Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 13:45:28 -
[4005] - Quote
Hello, no I have not read all 197 pages, but most of them yes.
The sov changes look like a really good set of rules, some of which need to be tweaked. However there is one big concern I have after seeing the fanfest presentation and other information channels about the subject:
A SCORCHED EARTH tactic would be quite devastating if implemented in some form by the larger alliances and coalitions. It could even lead to less pilots overall in zero sec.
Let me give an example: A small group of pilots or an alliance want to make a small statement in zero sec space. They successfully gain sov in a system hurrah. The previous owner does not have to react immediately it can set up a scorched earth plan at a later date. It simply waits until some or a substantial investment is made into the new conquered sov and then strikes to whipe it from the board and set up minimal support for a new sov flag or even leave it empty. In this endless loop of forward and backward the smaller entity probably will lose eventually. Leaving the space void or only with flags and nothing else.
At this moment a number of those buffer zones exist already, buffer zones are quite common when high and low connect to zero directly. As no one wants an enemy at their doorstep so starbases are whiped out repeatedly creating a buffer zone at the borders.
Scorched earth tactic repeatedly targeting a sov area will turn out to be a war of attrition discouraging smaller groups to invest at all. The sole purpose of this is creating a buffer zone denying anyone who is not friendly that space.
If you cannot hold sovereignty yourself, well simply deny the enemy with scorched earth tactics.
-Ela
P.S. This is something I would do when I was a leader of such a large alliance or coalition and I bet it's on their agenda |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 13:47:44 -
[4006] - Quote
Trying to maintain 4 very different games (Empire, Lowsec, Nulsec and Dust) on 1 server is going to become a task even CCP can't manage, "balancing" certain aspects of game play to suit a minority, leaves the majority with less than ideal balance. Right now it is Nulsec that is being changed, not improved or fixed, just changed.
Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved Failed, unless the goal was directed only at large groups
Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems Missed the mark because Goal 1 is not met for other than a few select groups.
Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle. As long as armies of allies can be used to take sov, this is not going to happen.
Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space. Pointless really as the only undefended space will be that which is not worth owning or defending.
Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space. Only if you belong to one of the major groups in viable space. The systems the large coalitions don't want will never be viable to live in as you will never get defensive indexes high enough to be of benefit. Yeah 4 or 5 years from now when CCP get around to balancing systems that may change but the upcoming release will see large tracts of unclaimed space because under the new system it will not be defensible.
Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load. Don't know about New Edens varied geography, a system with a node in it is the same as the one next door, no matter what geography it has but if having 400 to 500 players in each of 6 or 7 adjoining systems playing the "capture the node" mini game will reduce server load, this goal may actually be met.
Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE. Don't know if this will be possible without 1st fixing the overriding flaws with sov. This proposal overall does not address the fundamental issues surrounding sov, so any future changes will likely only add to the current bias.
Remove prime time or incorporate all aspects of sov into it. Removing stations from prime time breaks the prime time mechanic.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Angmar Udate
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 00:55:58 -
[4007] - Quote
Just here to throw my opinion on the pile.
Concern: alliance sets prime time to TZ other then my own, which would result in reduced content. Concern: alliance consistently attacks another alliance which has their prime time set in a TZ other then my own. Again reduced content for me
It feels like the current proposal would force alliances to segregate according to TZ, perhaps forming sister alliances.
Some random not very thoroughly thought out thoughts. * Perhaps it would help if it is possible to change the prime time easier. * Assign multiple different prime times to different systems / constellations. * Have alliances assign possibly disjunct 'primetime' blocks where the total number of primetime hours depends on the alliance size. Give each system / constellation a probability to be vulnerable during each hour of the assigned prime time blocks. * Have EVE calculate an alliances' member activity histogram (some unspecified rolling average) and have each system have a probability of being vulnerable during an hour corresponding to the activity histogram of the alliance for that hour.
|
cconeus
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:30:23 -
[4008] - Quote
Honestly CCP... What are you thinking?
Yes, structure grinding is boring. Yes, you need large ships to do so easily. But why this focus on smaller skirmish style warfare? I left the game for quite some time, and when I come back, the dreamland sandbox game I once knew has started to be boxed up like every other game on the market. You are interjecting quite harshly into what was once a free land, and not for the better.
As was stated in the post goals, "This also creates an artificial floor on the size of alliances or coalitions that can be successful in Sovereignty." There SHOULD be a floor size on the alliance or coalitions that can claim sov. It takes a lot of people working together to create and build the alliances capable of supporting such infrastructure, a lot of hours, and a lot of isk. There should be some renown with holding sov, it should not be something any 5 pilots can go do alone.
Even with this goal in mind, the entire system seems structured in a way that will ONLY allow large alliances to flourish. 5 guys for example cannot claim 10 nodes in 7 systems against 10 guys, they just don't have the numbers. That undermines your entire 'you gotta fight for it to get it' idea. Again, all of these goals so far have contradicted each other.
"Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load."
Take advantage of New Eden's varied geography.... this sounds like a very thin excuse for the second part, which if your PR people were smart, wouldn't have brought our attention to in the first place. We are players, most of us do not care about your business practices or if your servers can handle it. We pay (300,000 active players x$20 a month) $6,000,000 a month to you to play your game, if after 12 years you still don't have the server capacity to support 30,000 active players at once, I'm super curious where our money is going (DUST514 *cough cough*).
As you also mentioned in the blog, "Huge clashes between empires have become one of the most iconic symbols of EVEGÇÖs uniqueness and a source of well-deserved renown both for the game itself and for the fleet commanders who lead these battles." Now you're making sense! This is one of the reasons I came back to Eve Online. After more than 3 years of being away, nothing compared to the experience I had playing this game, being in a system with 2200 people, hundreds of super caps, titans, battleships galore on the fields, fights everywhere, it was exhilarating. No other game can come close to matching the possibilities of what you guys have created here.
And now I return, and Eve seems a tired old shell of what it once was. Not entirely mind you, but it seems this little thing called Jump Fatigue seems to have killed any chance of me ever experiencing what made me fall in love with your game again. From what I hear from other players, I'm not alone on this, and its probably a subject that's been beaten to death by now. However, between the changes to jump fatigue, the changes to how sov is claimed, and to the type of fights you seem to be gearing this game towards, (that was supposed to be a open ended sandbox mind you) it seems to be moving entirely away from capital fights at all. Add in the upcoming changes to assigning fighters, and the above mentioned (and mentioned in several other places) complaints by you to us about the server lag issues, which I'm sure capitals play a large role in, it all starts to come together.
Now I don't know if this was intentional plotting against the people who pay you (because mind you, super cap pilots dont grow on trees, they grow slowly and pay you a lot of money to have their accounts long enough to fly one) or if this is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right one is doing, but it all adds up to this. You are eliminating the need for capitals entirely from the game.
If I wanted to shoot something small, I'd bring a small gun. If I want to take over a country, I bring my big guns. With these changes to sov, you will make it possible for quite some nasty things to happen. One, it seems people in high sec could easily just go reinforce systems, all the time, anywhere they felt like. These people typically play little role in nullsec sov in my very limited experience, however you are giving them a huge opportunity to start expanding. That may be good, of course it will lead to more fights for space potentially, however quite the headache for us players who have to now trek to 30 systems every day to wait for stuff to come out of reinforce, because anyone with 10 min to spare can swing by and screw something up.
So are you trying to shrink peoples holdings? Well, you may not achieve that goal. Remember, the largest alliances still do have a TON of players. On a given day, heck even in a 4 hour period during prime time, some of the largest alliances could very easily send out dozens of 5 man squads to go on a 2-3 hour rampage through space, laying waste to exposed systems, and generally causing havoc. There may end up being hundreds of systems being reinforced daily, but it may end up being done by one or two or three groups primarily. This may end up being that instead of increasing the amount of skirmish warfare you are so fond of, you instead stomp out any chance of legitimate small players holding space on their own, and forcing them to absorb into the borg.
In the end, it doesnt matter what the intentions were, or which way the cookie crumbles. It appears no matter what, its a system full of flaws, that I seriously hope you address before it is released. I hope if someone from CCP reads this, they keep just one thing in mind the rest of their career: This game is sandbox, and should be managed as hands off as possible. Let the players run free, see what happens. That was the original idea. |
dreamgirl
Order of Omega
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 18:08:30 -
[4009] - Quote
i like this idea and gives smaller alliances a chance to hold space and make some money and what not. may improve the
market and industry and give more people the opportunity to experiance null sec industry.
pvp wise as a solo roamer i say awesome sauce.
pvp in general may be more interesting and im curious to see what eve players come up with to adapt.
also i like the idea of spreading fight out. but i got to thinking which is always a dangerous thing. ccp seems to keep alliances
focused on holding one system and making that benefit the alliance. and if you really wanted to spead things out maybe holding
sov over a constellation would make for a more interesting game play,spreading hard points across multiple systems with in a
certain close area. lots of possible tactics and losing one system does end the struggle. and also would please larger alliances
with high numbers that kinda need to spread out for money making opportunity. and makes allainces focus more on one area
and of course once sov is held in the constellation there should be rewards for that ofcourse . but you guys are the bosses and
ultimately we will continue to play this great game
thanks |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
906
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 20:56:53 -
[4010] - Quote
Anyone who thinks this will improve null sec industry needs to have his head examined.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Phoebe Freeport Republic
1619
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 22:09:56 -
[4011] - Quote
I like some of the ideas (free porting is great) and others I'm not sure of. It seems a bit too complicated at times.
One thing I don't like though is the 'Prime Time', because it doesn't fit into a persistent universe. I realize it's realitic (alarm clock raids) but I don't see how it really has a place in the game when this is a very international game.
Wanting sov though is still a problem as well as null industry, so I'm not sure how you fix one without the other.
GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 22:18:05 -
[4012] - Quote
dreamgirl wrote:i like this idea and gives smaller alliances a chance to hold space and make some money and what not. may improve the
market and industry and give more people the opportunity to experiance null sec industry.
pvp wise as a solo roamer i say awesome sauce.
pvp in general may be more interesting and im curious to see what eve players come up with to adapt.
also i like the idea of spreading fight out. but i got to thinking which is always a dangerous thing. ccp seems to keep alliances
focused on holding one system and making that benefit the alliance. and if you really wanted to spead things out maybe holding
sov over a constellation would make for a more interesting game play,spreading hard points across multiple systems with in a
certain close area. lots of possible tactics and losing one system does end the struggle. and also would please larger alliances
with high numbers that kinda need to spread out for money making opportunity. and makes allainces focus more on one area
and of course once sov is held in the constellation there should be rewards for that ofcourse . but you guys are the bosses and
ultimately we will continue to play this great game
thanks No it removes the ability for small alliances to "hold" space. They may be able to take a system here and there the bloks don't want but as for their ability to hold it; that is down to the mega alliances allowing them to stay. No small group is going to be able to build industry levels up in low level sov, under current system settings it just can't be done.
Pvp wise as a solo roamer, I don't see much opportunity. What players will come up with? Multiple large fleets defending valuable space, small gangs from alliances roaming round reinforcing everything they can, for no other reason than, "they can". They won't wont the space for themselves and there is no need for them to turn up for "primetime" to destroy anything. Just keep reinforcing stations 24/7 and the small alliance who lives there will eventually just give up and leave.
Making sov a constellation/ region wide thing also removes much of the ability for a smaller unaligned alliance to hold space. So again this plays right into the hands of the bloks. Such a smart idea to create conflict - Gear sov holding toward only the largest groups. Of course three or even 4 large groups are going to risk it all and fight each other; No there not, the leders of these bloks are smart enough to know you don't risk it by fighting someone who might beat you, so you make pacts and NAPS with them. Pretty much what happens now.
Many will not continue to play this game, especially as there are games in development who decided to copy what eve had done and create giant space sandboxes. Difference is, they are building games that will become giant sandboxes at the same time CCP is removing the sandbox element from Eve. Sadly, I know of quite a few long time Eve players who are now playing LOL, WOT and other such things because Eve got boring!!!
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
910
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 18:07:49 -
[4013] - Quote
A modest proposal...
One of the things that has bothered me the most about the proposed sovereignty system is that it allows small, non-committal entities to destroy valuable things without committing very much of their own to the fight. With destructible stations coming SoonTM, this is particularly troubling. In light of that, I suggest the following compromise.
Entosis can be used to capture a structure. Thus, if I go into your system and run my Entosis link on your I-Hub and you do not stop me by chasing me away or blowing up my ship, it generates the standard timers as proposed by Fozzie. Forty-eight hours later, we have the multi-node Entosis capture point battles (or you blue ball me). If I win, I keep my stuff.
Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures."
Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction."
A vulnerable structure may be captured when any alliance/corporation runs one Entosis cycle on it, at any time (no prime time window). Once captured, the structure belongs to that alliance and becomes vulnerable again during the next day's prime time for the capturing alliance. The captured structure retains the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].
A vulnerable structure may be stolen when any player scoops the structure into the cargo hold of his ship. Structures too large to fit into a ship cannot be stolen. Once scooped, the structure loses the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].
A vulnerable structure can be destroyed at any time, provided someone is willing to shoot at it long enough or bring enough [big] ships to do the job quickly. While there are no reinforcement timers, the structures all have a significant amount of hit points. In the event of destruction, the structure loss mail will belong to the last alliance/corporation to own the structure.
I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you?
Advantages over the current proposal: 1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space. 2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure. 3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures. 4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction. 5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters.
I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 22:28:28 -
[4014] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:A modest proposal...
One of the things that has bothered me the most about the proposed sovereignty system is that it allows small, non-committal entities to destroy valuable things without committing very much of their own to the fight. With destructible stations coming SoonTM, this is particularly troubling. In light of that, I suggest the following compromise.
In the proposed system, if I go into your system and run my Entosis link on your I-Hub and you do not stop me by chasing me away or blowing up my ship, it generates the standard timers as proposed by Fozzie. Forty-eight hours later, we have the multi-node Entosis capture point battles (or you blue ball me). If I win, I keep my stuff.
Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures."
Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction."
A vulnerable structure may be captured when any alliance/corporation runs one Entosis cycle on it, at any time (no prime time window). Once captured, the structure belongs to that alliance and becomes vulnerable again during the next day's prime time for the capturing alliance. The captured structure retains the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].
A vulnerable structure may be stolen when any player scoops the structure into the cargo hold of his ship. Structures too large to fit into a ship cannot be stolen. Once scooped, the structure loses the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].
A vulnerable structure can be destroyed at any time, provided someone is willing to shoot at it long enough or bring enough [big] ships to do the job quickly. While there are no reinforcement timers, the structures all have a significant amount of hit points. In the event of destruction, the structure loss mail will belong to the last alliance/corporation to own the structure.
I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you?
Advantages over the current proposal: 1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space. 2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure. 3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures. 4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction. 5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters.
I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal. Destructible stations under the currently proposed sov system, while it sounds good would kill sov nul quicker than any other change that has been proposed. 2nd only to removing local.
While your proposal is sort of interesting, it does not address the fundamental flaws in the current or proposed systems.
Moving any sov taking or holding activity outside the proposed "prime time" invalidates it completely. Funny thing is, the only other game i play that uses a prime time mechanic, is trying to phase it out. Turns out it is easily abused by larger groups and no matter what sort of changes the devs made, large groups found ways to exploit them. Only large well funded and organized groups hold battle stations (like sov) and the systems they are attached to.
If an alliance RF's a structure whether it is defended or not, only that alliance should be allowed to contest for sov or just screw with the sov holders. Allowing any man and his dog to turn up and get involved removes the ability of smaller unaligned alliances to hold space. It also forces the members of coalitions to be responsible for their space. If another alliance wants that space or to just screw with the owners, they can wait 48 hours until the current conflict is completed.
Current sov system requires large fleets to take sov due to structure grinding and extensive timers. Proposed sov system will require large fleets to play and win mini games with all but set timers..
Both systems = He with most blues WINS.
As CCP is capping much of the sandbox with rules, why not cap alliance size and make each alliance responsible for its own space. Coalitions could still exist for trade and industry and even safe travel routes but when it comes to holding space, it should be the sov holder who is responsible not the coalition they belong to.
- - - - - - - - - - - CCP isn't interested in what players think about the new sov system, they clearly have their own agenda. Right or wrong the proposed sov system will be the one going live and i imagine CCP already have the excuses for when it doesn't meet their proposed goals. All of which would be achievable with a little tweaking and a couple of hard decisions on CCP's part.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
910
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 22:53:44 -
[4015] - Quote
Yes, I figure that it is going live as is... We know that destructible stations are coming at some point. We know they intend to apply Entosis to all structures. We know they want to come up with something for capitals and supercapitals to do. It seems to me that my proposal is better than either the current system or the proposed system.
In case it wasn't clear, while I dislike the "prime time" - it is going to happen. My proposal would leave the "prime time" in place for the structure - until it has been Entosised and made vulnerable by the corresponding multi-node battle. Once the attackers win the multi-node battle, then the structure no longer has a prime time. It could then be captured, stolen, or destroyed by anyone.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Myrradah
Apotheosis of Caledvwich Dirt Nap Squad.
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 23:06:55 -
[4016] - Quote
Im not trying to be a negative Nancy here and I understand that this is a work in progress.
However, I fear that with what I have read so far, the dynamics may lead to creating bigger alliances.
If you get 5 capture nodes in a system in the defenders timezone, the easiest way to beat them is to get more friends to be in that constellation to catch all 5 nodes at the same time while blobbing the gages preventing movement etc for the defenders.
This obviously goes hand in hand with the known things in war - easier to defend than attack etc etc.
In addition, to get past the timezone issue, you are going to force alliances to get multiple corps (Get bigger) to cover multiple timezones.
So I have this fear that what the objective is wont be accomplished. Im not saying ti will, just that I can see this happening.
You guys at CCP are crafty - please be sure to account for this.
Thanks! Myrr
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 01:48:03 -
[4017] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Yes, I figure that it is going live as is... We know that destructible stations are coming at some point. We know they intend to apply Entosis to all structures. We know they want to come up with something for capitals and supercapitals to do. It seems to me that my proposal is better than either the current system or the proposed system.
In case it wasn't clear, while I dislike the "prime time" - it is going to happen. My proposal would leave the "prime time" in place for the structure - until it has been Entosised and made vulnerable by the corresponding multi-node battle. Once the attackers win the multi-node battle, then the structure no longer has a prime time. It could then be captured, stolen, or destroyed by anyone. OK, maybe I am misreading something in the way this will all work but my understanding is; Once the mini game is won or lost the structure is won or lost. Are you proposing another aspect be added to it all?
There is already a huge hole in the prime time concept because it does not include stations. Station services can be disabled at any time by anyone. I think that alone creates enough imbalance in the whole proposal without removing other structures from prime time. If all structures can be captured or whatever outside prime time why have prime time? If all structures are not included in prime time, why have it?
If CCP is intent on introducing strict 4 hour intervals of content, then it at least needs to be for all structures related to that type of content. Introducing a mechanic to standardize how something is done, then excluding the single most important structure from that mechanic just smacks of imbalance when looking at the goals of the new mechanic.
Under the new sov system, stations and moons are the only real content drivers. Moons of any value will be protected as they are now, possibly even better than they are now because coalitions will ensure they have enough bodies close enough to ensure there safety. Stations on the other hand can be RF'd by anyone who can activate an entosis link for a few minutes, at any time.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
910
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 03:44:26 -
[4018] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Yes, I figure that it is going live as is... We know that destructible stations are coming at some point. We know they intend to apply Entosis to all structures. We know they want to come up with something for capitals and supercapitals to do. It seems to me that my proposal is better than either the current system or the proposed system.
In case it wasn't clear, while I dislike the "prime time" - it is going to happen. My proposal would leave the "prime time" in place for the structure - until it has been Entosised and made vulnerable by the corresponding multi-node battle. Once the attackers win the multi-node battle, then the structure no longer has a prime time. It could then be captured, stolen, or destroyed by anyone. OK, maybe I am misreading something in the way this will all work but my understanding is; Once the mini game is won or lost the structure is won or lost. Are you proposing another aspect be added to it all?
Yes, I am proposing another aspect to it. Under the current proposal, the structure is automatically destroyed if the attacker wins the mini-game. In my proposal, winning the mini-game does not automatically destroy the structure - rather, it renders the structure vulnerable to being captured (via one last Entosis cycle), scooped (like any other loot floating in space), or destroyed (through the application of firepower).
The advantage I see in this versus the current proposal is that does not allow burning a system without committing real effort. You can still take someone's sovereignty flag away, destroy their indices, and loot their stuff, but actually blowing something up requires a commitment of some real firepower.
Maybe I am the only person in Eve who likes structure shoots? Always found besieging someone's stuff to be quite fun.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 09:29:05 -
[4019] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Yes, I figure that it is going live as is... We know that destructible stations are coming at some point. We know they intend to apply Entosis to all structures. We know they want to come up with something for capitals and supercapitals to do. It seems to me that my proposal is better than either the current system or the proposed system.
In case it wasn't clear, while I dislike the "prime time" - it is going to happen. My proposal would leave the "prime time" in place for the structure - until it has been Entosised and made vulnerable by the corresponding multi-node battle. Once the attackers win the multi-node battle, then the structure no longer has a prime time. It could then be captured, stolen, or destroyed by anyone. OK, maybe I am misreading something in the way this will all work but my understanding is; Once the mini game is won or lost the structure is won or lost. Are you proposing another aspect be added to it all? Yes, I am proposing another aspect to it. Under the current proposal, the structure is automatically destroyed if the attacker wins the mini-game. In my proposal, winning the mini-game does not automatically destroy the structure - rather, it renders the structure vulnerable to being captured (via one last Entosis cycle), scooped (like any other loot floating in space), or destroyed (through the application of firepower). The advantage I see in this versus the current proposal is that does not allow burning a system without committing real effort. You can still take someone's sovereignty flag away, destroy their indices, and loot their stuff, but actually blowing something up requires a commitment of some real firepower. Maybe I am the only person in Eve who likes structure shoots? Always found besieging someone's stuff to be quite fun. I see the logic and don't mind the odd structure shoot (unless it is with Ishtars) but all in all it is removing more things from "prime time". It seems prime time is going to be a part of the new mechanics, removing some aspects of taking and holding sov breaks the whole concept of prime time. You want to reduce someones indices, just have a few cloaky campers online around the clock. No mining, no ratting = No indices. So simple, So exploitable. No effective counter.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Suede
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 17:08:28 -
[4020] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:While the current sovereignty system worked fine for many years, we see the need for a fundamental overhaul. We are excited to present the plans for a new sov system coming early this summer including: 1) No more grinding through hitpoints 2) Meaningful combat events distributed over the whole constellation 3) Space activity results in defensive bonus 4) Designated daily "Prime time" for alliances when their structures become vulnerable Read all about this new sov system, the mechanics and the fine details in CCP Fozzie's latest blog Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two!
be nice if you add Delayed nullsec local, be nice to see how that will play out in eve
|
|
Aurumfault Shiptoaster
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 22:38:58 -
[4021] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: If an alliance RF's a structure whether it is defended or not, only that alliance should be allowed to contest for sov or just screw with the sov holders. Allowing any man and his dog to turn up and get involved removes the ability of smaller unaligned alliances to hold space. It also forces the members of coalitions to be responsible for their space. If another alliance wants that space or to just screw with the owners, they can wait 48 hours until the current conflict is completed.
Unworkable. If only one alliance can contest, that alliance will be alts of the sov holder keeping everything permanently "contested" and completely impossible to take. |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
125
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 23:14:23 -
[4022] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:You want to reduce someones indices, just have a few cloaky campers online around the clock. No mining, no ratting = No indices. So simple, So exploitable. No effective counter.
The effective counter is to not dock up. Being active and ready/willing to fight is the counter. If nothing happens you win and if a fight happens it is content.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
495
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 08:23:19 -
[4023] - Quote
Posting these questions again, as players are already planning their tactics and strategies for the summer, we deserve some more information.
Aiyshimin wrote:Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:
- Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
- Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
- Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
- Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
- Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
and a few more:
- Do the nodes allow anchoring deployables in their vicinity?
- Will the nodes have a decloaking sphere around them?
The deadspace or not part is the most important now, along with the "tug of war" specifics. Thanks! |
Tejoe Nightstar
Society of Mechanics Engineers and Gearheads
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 03:55:30 -
[4024] - Quote
A couple of questions that I didn't see any clarification.
- As Command Nodes are generated, will they be evenly spread through the constellation? Or will it be a weighted distribution with an extra 20% chance of being in the disputed system?
- If more than one system/structure is generating Command Nodes in the constellation, will the Command Nodes be marked as to which system/structure they are part of the 10 count?
- If the defenders eliminate all offensive entosis links, does the timer immediately reset? Or does it work like a control timer like in an FW plex?
A suggestion, since not all structures are equal, have larger structures have a longer base time or create more command nodes. |
Dave Blaumeise
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:07:50 -
[4025] - Quote
The reason people play eve is violence.
No matter what you do, if you want something, you have to be violent. Be it the miner, that kills rats in his belt, be it a mission runner, be it a gatecamper, hotdropper, be it the alliance taking over sovereignity, you are violent. When we are in fleets, we talk about DPS, we tweak our fittings to be get more dps for the isk. We link damage notfications just to show off.
Everyone starting EVE Online is becoming very quickly aware that there is a real big ship they might be able to fly one day, to eliminate some of the biggest ships with a single shot of a superweapon. WOW.
The NYX model, one of the most powerful ships in EVE, the model has become iconic for EVE. WOW! So much violence!
Now the future:
The big guns - EVERYONE LOVES BIG GUNS, right? - are being removed and replaced by a module called Entosis Link. Even the largest structures can be disabled or destroyed by a module that one can fit to almost every ship. No one needs the big guns anymore and they are being removed soon.
Gone is the violence, the sheer, brutal force of Dreadnaughts reinforcing a pos or Station or to kill a battleship fleet.
CCP, you are going into the wrong direction. EVE is not about magic wands, it is about violence!
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
121
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 22:36:44 -
[4026] - Quote
Dave Blaumeise wrote:The reason people play eve is violence.
No matter what you do, if you want something, you have to be violent. Be it the miner, that kills rats in his belt, be it a mission runner, be it a gatecamper, hotdropper, be it the alliance taking over sovereignity, you are violent. When we are in fleets, we talk about DPS, we tweak our fittings to be get more dps for the isk. We link damage notfications just to show off.
Everyone starting EVE Online is becoming very quickly aware that there is a real big ship they might be able to fly one day, to eliminate some of the biggest ships with a single shot of a superweapon. WOW.
The NYX model, one of the most powerful ships in EVE, the model has become iconic for EVE. WOW! So much violence!
Now the future:
The big guns - EVERYONE LOVES BIG GUNS, right? - are being removed and replaced by a module called Entosis Link. Even the largest structures can be disabled or destroyed by a module that one can fit to almost every ship. No one needs the big guns anymore and they are being removed soon.
Gone is the violence, the sheer, brutal force of Dreadnaughts reinforcing a pos or Station or to kill a battleship fleet.
CCP, you are going into the wrong direction. EVE is not about magic wands, it is about violence!
So much violence going on RIGHT now... The horror... They're killing miners! MINERS! Stations are changing hands every 36 hours. The fight is to the LAST Titan, LAST! No one can afford to commit any more assets into this bloodbath... So much horror.
I have seen ATTACK ships on fire, off the shoulder of RFY-QB... Judgment day TRULY approcheath... Unseen VIOLENCE ERUPTIN-OHGOD!..
...radio comms silence...
*STATIC*
...........................................................................................
DEKLEIN HAS FALLEN.
END TRANSMISSION
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Webster Carr
Aliastra Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 23:24:50 -
[4027] - Quote
Dave Blaumeise wrote:The reason people play eve is violence.
No matter what you do, if you want something, you have to be violent. Be it the miner, that kills rats in his belt, be it a mission runner, be it a gatecamper, hotdropper, be it the alliance taking over sovereignity, you are violent. When we are in fleets, we talk about DPS, we tweak our fittings to be get more dps for the isk. We link damage notfications just to show off.
Everyone starting EVE Online is becoming very quickly aware that there is a real big ship they might be able to fly one day, to eliminate some of the biggest ships with a single shot of a superweapon. WOW.
The NYX model, one of the most powerful ships in EVE, the model has become iconic for EVE. WOW! So much violence!
Now the future:
The big guns - EVERYONE LOVES BIG GUNS, right? - are being removed and replaced by a module called Entosis Link. Even the largest structures can be disabled or destroyed by a module that one can fit to almost every ship. No one needs the big guns anymore and they are being removed soon.
Gone is the violence, the sheer, brutal force of Dreadnaughts reinforcing a pos or Station or to kill a battleship fleet.
CCP, you are going into the wrong direction. EVE is not about magic wands, it is about violence!
I have to agree.
The Entosis mechanic just seems contrived and artificial. There is no 'story' to it: I sat here and activated this 'thing' and nobody on the other side showed up so we just sort of won...
I know there are mechanical advantages to sovereignty, but when you come right down to it: Sovereignty is CONTROL.
You jump in like you own the place, rat, mine, whatever and nobody comes to kick you out, then well you own the place. They have a mechanic for Military and Industrial Indexes. Just allow normal activity by an opposing alliance to degrade existing indices then build their own and when it reaches a certain level, bam, Sovereignty changes.
It has a certain real life parallel: An Army would move in, siege the castle (blockade the gates), loot the fields (kill the rats, mine the roids), kill the peasants (scan down and destroy anyone doing normal system activity), etc... In other words they would gain CONTROL over the realm (system) even if the castle (station) was still in one piece.
Just my 2ISK
-Web |
0bama Barack Hussein
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 14:06:45 -
[4028] - Quote
My 20 cents: (before rant)
From playing in Null (Provi, CVA), high-sec (missions/trade) and FW since 2009 (+actually some mining too, though now I know it gets too boring for me quickly, but I were mining in Amarr with Bestower and one laser at very beginning without a clue, when a Bro from CVA came to recruit me, and ensured I kept playing after that terrible start).
If you (CCP) are gonna go this route you have planned, better make it so that high sec is also drawn into a (FW?) war (or optionally risk wardecs of other corps), between empires after 30 days rookie corp, because violence, ganking, griefing, cheating, betrayal, human driven politics+social interaction and mutual wars with hope of flying BIG ships eventually etc. are actually blood EvE lives on, compared to other games like (new) Elite (E:D).
That (ED) I have enjoyed as much as EvE, as both are masters in their own territory, and as both are keeping focus on their own "strong-areas" (mentioning this because I have actually recently spent more time with ED than EvE, that I found troublesome, because I want BOTH games, for different reasons) .
That high-sec war would force players to really consider their options after beginning at EvE, either be it joining high-sec corp (risking war decks) instead of FW, or forming their own single corp (risking war decks). All these scenarios would bring null more appealing for new players, and old like me. Adapt, get on a group (where newbies can actually learn something). Dont become voluntary target (alone). Punish+hunt (any+enemy FW) gankers killing (then now FW) miners in high sec severely through the Empire(s).
RANT:
Why cant I be allowed to get, as ordinary half-time warrior, decent living (and isk for PLEX) in null, as before (yeah changes during year(s) have been so frequent I-¦m still not clear how much it-¦s different year or 2 ago)? You forced me to go into FW orbiting beacon-timers with warp stabbed (cheap FAST frigs, earlier even with a cloak) ships to carry on playing with PLEX (yeah, think I have payed enough in EURO-¦s during the years).
Now you WANT me to re-do that failure of a design, in null, but this time without LP? Really? I moved to FW (mostly) because it payed more, what I actually needed with much less risk. And it is **** boring! What is this change gonna benefit me now in null?
Not just that, you nerfed+changed some certain smaller ships I had fits and ready in null with recommended/doctrine fits, and now cant even fly them! And when I were skilling for "BIG ships", carriers etc. already bought, aiming for some (easy) fun I had dreamed (for years), you hit them with these nerfs (next June, too)?
Really? It is like promising "Super Titan" for players in next few years, but then after all skilling cancelling them!
...
And then there is this 4 hour window... Aussies are not only ones to get hit by it.
Just think of me, unregular provi+CVA-casual warrior, from Eastern European TZ (from here at Finland, but just as for example Poland-¦s too), what would you guess CVA is gonna make their prime time? Western Europe and/or USA-prime time, pretty much forcing me to either be only in offence (with CVA?), or joining Russians, that we dont share any language, ideology or view of the world with, together (just joking here, but be glad we are not in war yet, again, lol).
Maybe make it 4 hours (I see reasoning behind it), but divided to 2x 2 hours periods (so both EU and USA players get on in it at their prime times as an example), and make those enthosis links work twice as fast (believe me, max. 20 minutes in FW is already enough in EVERY sense for orbiting something, even getting ganked while on it, and should be enough for defenders to react (if not, make them have immediate information they are under attack).
I see lots of good here, but THE BIG PICTURE need to be balanced so that this could work. Just my opinion, dont hate 0bama for it! |
Shaklu
Relentless Terrorism Already Disbanded
42
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 18:33:08 -
[4029] - Quote
I see lots of ppl worrying about the prime time thing.. couldn't this be negated somewhat by using war decs? If you want to attack someone, but their prime time is 12 hours off of yours, declare war on them and it will make both attacker and defender vulnerable during both prime times set by the corps/alliances that are participants in the war.
Doing that would give the defenders a 24 hour warning because of war dec.. seems to make sense to me |
DooDoo Gum
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 04:48:53 -
[4030] - Quote
That whack-a-mole game that was dumped on eve exploration... why stop there?
Seriously, its uses know no bounds. With a little work, im sure it can be implemented in the game of sov as well. |
|
Tejoe Nightstar
Society of Mechanics Engineers and Gearheads
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 16:50:32 -
[4031] - Quote
Shaklu wrote:I see lots of ppl worrying about the prime time thing.. couldn't this be negated somewhat by using war decs? If you want to attack someone, but their prime time is 12 hours off of yours, declare war on them and it will make both attacker and defender vulnerable during both prime times set by the corps/alliances that are participants in the war.
Or, as an alternative, increase the prime time window by 1 hour (30 minutes added to each end) if you have any wardecs declared on you. (penalty applies only once) And have a 1 -+ hour if the corp has declared any wardecs on others. (again, the penalty applies only once) But only members in the affected corps/alliances can use the additional 2-+ hours.
As a balance to this, structures captured within a wardec can be razed, looted, destroyed or unanchored. If a structure is captured absent a wardec, it cannot be destroyed or looted and cannot be unanchored for 60 days. |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
86
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 09:17:43 -
[4032] - Quote
Just wish some of these Dev's would actually play EVE from a players perspective and witness the effects of the changes they have so far spewed into the game these past few months.
Truth is currently there is little incentive to play the game at all for players, the overall results of the travel Nerf has cut into players actual ability to complete fleets before having to log off on many occasions in hostile space the inevitable results of which when they do log back in again is loosing there ships and getting podded back, nice for the hostiles, not much incentive for the poor sod it happens to though, overall result is players get less content satisfaction, are less inclined to join fleets and are more inclined to simply give up playing EVE or at the very least leave Null Sec space.
Large areas of many Alliances Space are currently a deserted wasteland more utilized by neutrals than Alliance members who have little or no incentive to move from there current systems which have become heavily over populated and over farmed, results of that are there is less and less inclination to log in at all when you know that all the resources have been farmed out by players with more available game time than you have
The proposed Sov changes headline that they will provide additional content for players, but with no incentive to move why would they care to chase after silly little modules and timers when they can simply wait and then take back the lost systems at there leisure, The more likely outcome will be that they simply dock up and wait out the problem, then find they have less inclination to log in at all, result that leave the game or leave Null Sec
The effects of that silly blue timer icon have had far reaching and undesirable effects way beyond those required to simply Nerf power projection. |
Lugburz
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
3
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 19:21:18 -
[4033] - Quote
listen, if you nullbears dont want to defend your space; if you want it to be 'safe', gtfo and go back to highsec where you really belong. it really is that simple.
have a nice day. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 17:05:00 -
[4034] - Quote
New sovereignty system for stations should include capture of player assets in hangars by new owners.
This will provide motivation for small alliances to try capturing stations which they will not be able to hold long once alliances large enough to apply pressure 24x7 go to work. Viking raid and pirate prize crews taking new fleet assets.
Stations are what allows sustained force projection into a system. Particularly for small alliances needing to recycle pilots quickly after they get killed. TCU are gonna just be Epeen flagpoles without any material effect except to allow skipping the intel process for determining who is most willing to fight in a given null system. Infrastructure hubs only matter if you do industry and that is directly proportionate to your confidence in holding a system.
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 17:10:28 -
[4035] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Just wish some of these Dev's would actually play EVE from a players perspective and witness the effects of the changes they have so far spewed into the game these past few months.
Truth is currently there is little incentive to play the game at all for players, the overall results of the travel Nerf has cut into players actual ability to complete fleets before having to log off on many occasions in hostile space the inevitable results of which when they do log back in again is loosing there ships and getting podded back, nice for the hostiles, not much incentive for the poor sod it happens to though, overall result is players get less content satisfaction, are less inclined to join fleets and are more inclined to simply give up playing EVE or at the very least leave Null Sec space.
Large areas of many Alliances Space are currently a deserted wasteland more utilized by neutrals than Alliance members who have little or no incentive to move from there current systems which have become heavily over populated and over farmed, results of that are there is less and less inclination to log in at all when you know that all the resources have been farmed out by players with more available game time than you have
The proposed Sov changes headline that they will provide additional content for players, but with no incentive to move why would they care to chase after silly little modules and timers when they can simply wait and then take back the lost systems at there leisure, The more likely outcome will be that they simply dock up and wait out the problem, then find they have less inclination to log in at all, result that leave the game or leave Null Sec
The effects of that silly blue timer icon have had far reaching and undesirable effects way beyond those required to simply Nerf power projection.
You can still get skirmish sized fleets up without much notice. Its just the grand blob fleets that can no longer be whistled up quickly with little or no warning. They can still be done but they will require significant planning and time to gather up. Which means that blob fleet movement leaves the tactical world for the truly strategic world where intelligence and spies and counter-intelligence misdirection can wreck havoc so easily. |
WhyTry1
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
85
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 08:50:02 -
[4036] - Quote
Disclaimer : I am not affiliated with any power bloc therefore this is not a biased post. Also this is my main and not an alt Smile However I have been playing eve for many years and have spent a silly amount of time in nullsec. Just thought i would get that in there before the alt, troll, grr goons, grrr n3, grrr whatever posts come....
Anyway, I have been thinking about the fozziesov thing for sometime, much like many others i guess. The recent changes with jump fatigue etc have been good, and i support that, it was needed. The lets hold lots of space, make billions renting lots of regions and not even living in it, just because you could throw 100 supers at someone in minutes was becoming a joke. I still don't think one alliance should be able to hold one full region to be honest and i would like to see the verite map changed to be sov only map not a influence map as it can wrongly give information about how much space one owns. But i digress...Sorry...
On to fozziesov, great idea as a concept, will make more fights local, will make people think a little more about the space they want to own and defend, especially for the larger alliances. Now i assumed (and maybe wrongly) that this was also to let the little guys get a chance to harass and even hold sov. Which would be great! However my concern is how really easy it is, meaning the time it takes to cause disruption.
We seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. Now again you may thing hey well that helps the little guys, but does it? My worry is the purposeful setting up of large newbie alliances to effectively cause havoc in nullsec just to create content. This isn't just about PL horde, although its convienient that a group that was so elitist all of a sudden decided to create a newb alliance, but also the likes of Brave and Goons. Which can effectively sum up 100,200,300+ gangs just to roam nullsec and disrupt lots of systems in a night, then go back again the next night and the next. The smaller alliances have literally no chance at all, they can compete with that may pilots 'constantly' roaming about, disrupting everything in 20 minutes. Surely fozzie must of thought of this and again just as the high sec poco debacle, they create a game that obviously favours Goons, and Brave and now PL Horde. I worry this will just have the complete opposite effect where no one dares live, or invest in nullsec because of the constant harassment. For example you think about increasing mining yield but who in the right mind is going to have mining sessions with 300+ people coming about constantly? I think this could actually end up destroying nullsec I always wonder if CCP every look at the bigger picture rather than this inward thinking... |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1551
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 14:56:34 -
[4037] - Quote
0bama Barack ******* wrote:You forced me to go into FW orbiting beacon-timers with warp stabbed (cheap FAST frigs, earlier even with a cloak) ships to carry on playing with PLEX (yeah, think I have payed enough in EURO-¦s during the years).
The irony is that if the Entosis Link was adopted by Factional Warfare, it would go a long way toward solving this problem: while it's active, you can't cloak and you can't warp. While it's equipped, your agility is crap.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
0bama Barack Hussein
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 09:40:11 -
[4038] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:0bama Barack ******* wrote:You forced me to go into FW orbiting beacon-timers with warp stabbed (cheap FAST frigs, earlier even with a cloak) ships to carry on playing with PLEX (yeah, think I have payed enough in EURO-¦s during the years). The irony is that if the Entosis Link was adopted by Factional Warfare, it would go a long way toward solving this problem: while it's active, you can't cloak and you can't warp. While it's equipped, your agility is crap.
Well, but my point there were that it is just ridiculous to make null sec, but not high sec, new low sec FW arena (without LP)...
This system should be executed (maybe even shot) at high sec, between Factions. |
xxVastorxx
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
90
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 18:47:29 -
[4039] - Quote
Id rather shoot thro millions of HP then have it easy,
I like my sov how it is,
Your new sov changes CCP is a joke. Fatigue is a Joke Players still remember what happend back in B-R they want another B-R fight, Eve got more subscribers after B-R
Why must you always ruin the nice things why **** away Null alliances hard work for an easier way, If getting sov was easy then what's the point of liveing in nullsec it should be a challenge fight thro horde's and horde's of hostiles to get something, not sit there, and be like click i got sov yay sov yay
Should be comon boys lets go get the sov grind grind grind op success that's a much better accomplishment then haveing a Handicap mod the etosis link.
The new changes to this and that, is like watching a 5 yearold in a candy store. who cant make his mind up on what choclate bar he wants. |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1556
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 19:41:58 -
[4040] - Quote
0bama Barack ******* wrote:Well, but my point there were that it is just ridiculous to make null sec, but not high sec, new low sec FW arena (without LP)...
Well, it is factional warfare. There are factions, and there's warfare. I've often thought it would be cool to allow sov holding alliances to award LP and set up LP stores.
High sec will probably change--"the empires are losing their grip on power"--but I don't see why it should change first. Null sec residents have been crying for a sov revamp for years, more so since the Incarna flare-up postponed CCP's first attempt at post-Dominion sov (in the release originally planned to follow Incarna, which was scrapped for Crucible).
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
|
lost packet
GamCorp Almost Broken
45
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 19:44:20 -
[4041] - Quote
Been playing 8 years, even done a couple of fanfests and found some questionable tattoos when I awoke/sobered up - not sure i'll make it to 9 years.
EVE is becoming a shadow of its former self, figure I should go buy a console and play capture the flag.
|
S3ND3TH
Bloody Hands Usurper.
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 21:54:19 -
[4042] - Quote
WhyTry1 wrote:This isn't just about PL horde, although its convienient that a group that was so elitist all of a sudden decided to create a newb alliance, but also the likes of Brave and Goons. Which can effectively sum up 100,200,300+ gangs just to roam nullsec and disrupt lots of systems in a night, then go back again the next night and the next. The smaller alliances have literally no chance at all, they can compete with that may pilots 'constantly' roaming about, disrupting everything in 20 minutes.
if they are doing this to you every night then you know when their space is empty. do it back. and they will have more area to disrupt.
|
0bama Barack Hussein
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 09:43:20 -
[4043] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:0bama Barack ******* wrote:Well, but my point there were that it is just ridiculous to make null sec, but not high sec, new low sec FW arena (without LP)... (in the release originally planned to follow Incarna, which was scrapped for Crucible).
You see???
Yep this is how lost I am, I cant just keep track/remember all changes /non-changes from last 6 years, I have found my hangar full of already fitted ships I were not able to fly after "rebalancing", skilled for "warp-bubbles" to stop enemies at our only gate just when CCP decided to let interceptors through bubbles, now when I had just started skilling to carriers (I always wanted, BIG ships), "no no, null sec sov is turning to FW timers!"....
I just have had it (up there), did let 2 of my null sec accounts expire yesterday, only this remains. |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1258
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 13:41:20 -
[4044] - Quote
0bama Barack ******* wrote:I just have had it (up there), did let 2 of my null sec accounts expire yesterday, only this remains.
Cool. Can I have your stuff?
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
0bama Barack Hussein
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 17:35:04 -
[4045] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:0bama Barack ******* wrote:I just have had it (up there), did let 2 of my null sec accounts expire yesterday, only this remains. Cool. Can I have your stuff?
"Yesterday"...
Too late? But dont worry, this char will be around this year minimum. I just poop isk in FW. |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
86
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 16:15:05 -
[4046] - Quote
Perfect griefer's charter this lot is, PL/BL must be drooling already.
Own nothing, Build nothing, Plan nothing, Just blow it all up, you know it makes perfect sense, Fozzie says so.
|
Bogdo Lama
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 18:52:52 -
[4047] - Quote
Lugburz wrote:listen, if you nullbears dont want to defend your space; if you want it to be 'safe', gtfo and go back to highsec where you really belong. it really is that simple.
have a nice day.
Your such a smart little troll. But tell me what is your method of carebearing? I mean according your comment your not nullbear. But if your not nullbear then you are either hisec bear, lowsec bear or wh bear. Still it seems your living in sov space but not just nullbearing there?
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
289
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 19:29:52 -
[4048] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Perfect griefer's charter this lot is, PL/BL must be drooling already.
Yep |
Jhekarn Hasamura
Men of Business Ltd. Kraftwerk.
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 13:22:33 -
[4049] - Quote
Oh boy.. im looking totaly forward to this chaos..
Today its my Space, tomorrow its his Space the day after its her space - then its everyones space until someone got the space (for just one day)...
gnah - this sounds absolutely funy... - not
Mein Leben in New Eden: Ein Schatten im Nichts.
|
Kuhal
The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 04:12:11 -
[4050] - Quote
So for setting the timers, will each structure have its own unique modifiable timer? Or will it be an alliance wide?
For example: Can I set the ihub to be 0200 and the TCU to be 0800 or are both just set to one time via whole alliance? |
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
437
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 06:15:59 -
[4051] - Quote
Kuhal wrote:So for setting the timers, will each structure have its own unique modifiable timer? Or will it be an alliance wide?
For example: Can I set the ihub to be 0200 and the TCU to be 0800 or are both just set to one time via whole alliance? As each can only be attacked during the alliance preset 4 hour prime time both would come out some time in the 4 hour alliance preset prime time.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
964
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 13:48:26 -
[4052] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:marly cortez wrote:Perfect griefer's charter this lot is, PL/BL must be drooling already. Yep
You've got it totally backwards.
My dream is an army of entosis alts logged offin every high end moon system to continually harass whatever platform mines said high end moon. Keep those things shut down. Grieeeeeeeeeeeeeeef those towers...... errr platforms. When they defend A, then log out and grief B. Keep the moongriefing rolling. Whack a mole gone wild folks! (But.... sir.... we can't defend them all.... there's just too many)
Dream #2 - no one can hold sov long enough to build/replace supers. The player base as a whole will be able to grind that nonsense down to a nub. Crib clubbings will be the new form of supers warfare.
Dream #3 - the endless CTAs to protect vast swaths of entosis griefed space will be the wake up call for the blue donut and everyone (finally) sees the fun and joy involved in giving each other the finger on a grand scale and getting back to the business of BLOWING SHIPS UP. Blue collar pilots w/out a cup under the isk faucet will rise up and take what belongs to them.
Dream #4 - the isk pilers that currently run sov null as a for profit business form somesort of sad sad therapy group where they can discuss at length how, when and where they actually went wrong.
(think Bill Murray here in any number of movies giving one of his classic motivational speeches)
WHO'S WITH ME???
|
Stragak
16
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 23:18:43 -
[4053] - Quote
What if we did made the entosis link effective on a bell curve? So you can grind it but only like at 5% efficiency. A bell curve similiar to the Eve learning curve. Maybe bottom out at 5%.
http://s1085.photobucket.com/user/straga03/media/Prime%20time.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
"Oh look, the cat is sitting in the litter box and pooping over the side again" every time we go through these "rough patches".
In good humor, and slight annoyance,
Boiglio -á-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238130&p=82
|
James Spacecrawler
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 00:42:32 -
[4054] - Quote
1)All I heard was ending structure grinding. You could have said giving blowjobs was gonna replace structure grinding and this would still be good news.
2)I have to agree with some of the comments, that It is very difficult. for many people in nullsec to make enough ISK to replace the ships that they lose in PvP. Some of the bigger Alliances can afford a ship replacement program, but the smaller ones are out of luck.
3)I know you have addressed this already, but I hope once these changes are implemented and the role of capital ships gets severely limited that CCP works to redefine the roles of caps and supers, giving us a reason to actually own one.
4)Overall, I like that Alliances have to actively defend their systems. The time zone changes are good because most of the people outside the fleet time zones are usually freeloaders that never attend CTA's anyway.
5)Also, now that this is being implemented, I think all the work done to limit lightyear jumps can be nullified, since Capitals won't be so important anymore. |
Lord Valian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 08:38:03 -
[4055] - Quote
Greygal wrote:Need to read this far more closely, but my initial reactions are: 1. I don't see how this helps the little guy take and hold sov space. If anything, it seems to make it even easier for existing sov holders to hold and keep their space. Heck, the one nifty thing about these proposed changes - the Entosis Link, which could be used by little guys - is near on worthless if the only time you can attack something is during their prime time, and NOT during YOUR prime time. 2. I don't see occupancy effects as we've long been hoping and praying for... i.e., the more you use space, the stronger your hold over the space, the less you use space, the less you own it, eventually leading to sov dropping from lack of use. You've addressed (defensive) bonuses to using space, but have not addressed penalties for NOT using your space. In other words, where is the "use it or lose it" based sov we've been begging for?3. DETEST the "prime time" concept. Will expand more after I cool off over reading that, but it's pretty much screwed any advantage of having Australian-time-zone strong corps in nullsec. This gives HUGE advantage to the existing blocs. It also takes away any chance of small groups that are active in opponent's low-activity time zones the possibility of attacking and taking over someone else's sov. It takes away any opportunity for two large groups that are not in the same time zone to ever fight on a meaningful level. Most importantly, it essentially kills cross-time-zone teamwork within an alliance. How does making your space absolutely safe 20 hours out of the day encourage conflict?4. DO like - in fact, love - the freeport bit. ADORE the Freeport idea. Love it. 5. I'm not entirely sure, but right now, I think I like the capture-the-nodes aspect of the changes. I can see how that spreads the fight out over several systems, but also (depending upon constellation layout) makes just hell-camping a single system could be a solid defensive tactic. I like that this makes subcaps (especially fast ones) have a highly useful role in "big" sov fights. I can see how small roving 3rd party gangs could royally screw things up for attackers and defenders (not entirely sure that is good or bad though). (Edit: More I think about it, especially the chasing and fighting aspects, the more I like the command nodes idea.) 6. I don't see how capitals/supers/titans/etc play a role in taking sov anymore. In fact, you could potentially take and hold and defend sov space without any big-boy-toys at all... which does have a certain appeal, I must admit, but if there is NO REASON to use your big-boy-toys, then there is NO REASON TO RISK THEM. Which means less big-boy-toys dying, and that does make me sad. I'm not a fan of capital/super/titan/dread warfare, but I recognize it's something many players really enjoy, and I believe supporting engaging gameplay for the big-boy-toys is vital to Eve's health. And I do like tackling them - Get rid of the "prime time" idiocy. Just nuke it. Keep the current reinforcement timer system, where the owner sets what time a structure comes out of reinforced to their prime time, but let us attack at the time of our own choosing. - Giving defensive bonuses to systems that are actively used is Good IdeaGäó - But you need to add a penalty to NOT using systems, so that systems that are unused eventually just drop sov, or become ridiculously easy to take. - How about making those 48 hour timers much shorter in systems that have low activity levels? Where are the economic improvements? Is that coming this year also? Just curious. March 4: Okay, 4 more edits/thoughts after reading every word of the next 42 pages of responses: - If you absolutely must keep the prime time, there are numerous suggestions in the following 42 pages that have prime time based on activity levels in a system/constellation. Building upon ideas I particularly liked in the following pages is to have areas heavily used have very small prime times, and areas hardly used have long (all the way to 24 hours) prime times, making unused systems vulnerable to attack at any time. This suggestion, which I hope you give thought to, addresses many of the issues of the prime time concept, provides cross-time-zone content, is a big advantage to small groups, forces larger groups to pay better attention to their unused systems or drop them, and if those unused systems happen to have nice moons, give potential use for caps/supers. - Stick to your guns about letting the entosis link be fit on virtually any ship, including interceptors. That's one of the best ideas in the blog, the ensuing hilarity will be epic. Yes, it'll be abused for trolling purposes sometimes, but if you don't have the ability to swarm an area with fast, small ships (maybe they came in through a frigate wormhole?), half of the best part of these changes is wiped out. Sure, it'll be annoying at times, but that's okay! There are far too many ways for people to counter such swarms, including the simplest: Undock and put your own entosis link on the structure to counter. - Totally agree with the numerous suggestions on the following 42 pages about all forms of industry, including building, research, exploration, etc., affect the industry index. PVP should also be included in the military index. Everything you do in your sov space should count towards improving your occupancy strength. - Drastically reducing the size of iHubs is vital to the success of this. iHubs will be reinforced and destroyed far more often - which is a Good ThingGäó - having a steady supply of iHubs for people to attack is essential to this.
Just wanted to bring more attention to this, in particular the last edits - good post/improvements.
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 11:03:20 -
[4056] - Quote
Okay. I don't post often and I'm nothing but an NPC null noob; but I feel I need to speak up. First off, as pointed out many times before: the timezone idea has *some* merit but 4 hours is definitely not enough. Not by a long shot. Should be at least 12, maybe even 16.
Secondly, enthosis links might be useful tools to controlling your structure, maybe even hacking into it to stir up trouble; yet capturing a system with it? That's a bridge too far. I mean ..... don't we need GUNS anymore? Guns, like... pewpew? -BOOM!- y'know ... shooting? Firefight? Brawl? Firepower, appropriate to the size of the building, should still play a decisive role in the matter. Bring caps, bring battleships, bring HACs; but don't just bring a swarm of Velators for crying out loud!
And finally, here is something that defies logic: an Enthosis ship cannot receive remote assistance, yet it's still completely mobile? Sounds to me like an attempt to force gameplay; either give it a proper propulsion penalty like the HIC's, or allow remote assistance-- but please don't invalidate all shipclasses (such as BC, BS) that benefit more from logistics than from speedtanking. If you only want Enthosis on a certain type of vessel, then come clean and say so immediately. |
0bama Barack Hussein
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 11:19:53 -
[4057] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Okay. I don't post often and I'm nothing but an NPC null noob; but I feel I need to speak up. First off, as pointed out many times before: the timezone idea has *some* merit but 4 hours is definitely not enough. Not by a long shot. Should be at least 12, maybe even 16. Secondly, enthosis links might be useful tools to controlling your structure, maybe even hacking into it to stir up trouble; yet capturing a system with it? That's a bridge too far. I mean ..... don't we need GUNS anymore? Guns, like... pewpew? -BOOM!- y'know ... shooting? Firefight? Brawl? Firepower, appropriate to the size of the building, should still play a decisive role in the matter. Bring caps, bring battleships, bring HACs; but don't just bring a swarm of Velators for crying out loud! And finally, here is something that defies logic: an Enthosis ship cannot receive remote assistance, yet it's still completely mobile? Sounds to me like an attempt to force gameplay; either give it a proper propulsion penalty like the HIC's, or allow remote assistance-- but please don't invalidate all shipclasses (such as BC, BS) that benefit more from logistics than from speedtanking. If you only want Enthosis on a certain type of vessel, then come clean and say so immediately.
At lightly defended areas (not enough defenders/all dock when enemy fills local) fleet of 90% of warp core stabbed interceptors, 5% combat focused interceptors, and 5% Ishtars...
I can already imagine some big block to take Providence with a fleet like that (1000-2000 pilots should be enough). |
Kaeden Teresect
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 07:35:04 -
[4058] - Quote
In regards to the perceived "ship size floor" in the current Dominion system: What incentives do people have to sport larger ships for PVP when the battles are not determined by damage/dps? Also doesn't a need for more damage-bigger ships incentivise greater industry focus? So where there is not need for big ships there is less need indy and less need for really anything but buzzing around in a slasher flashing my entonis.
I think the new system has dire economic concerns that relegate large investments to the bold or stupid. Why spend billions of isk and lots of hours working structures and bonuses that can be removed piecemeal by 40 minute encounters with single module (entonis link) and some luck.
Lasty I will put it out their now just so its said, why not make virtual alliances with people and agree that neither side capture a freeport POS so no one has to pay upkeep and everyone wins? Black market anyone?. Stalemates all around! |
Ida Aurlien
Cerberus Federation Industrial Division Gentlemen's.Parlor
20
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 00:37:56 -
[4059] - Quote
crazy I know I can read guess ccp has something against reading what customers are saying.... well when u try to change the wheel you will always pay |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 136 :: [one page] |