|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1392
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:43:25 -
[1] - Quote
I guess I don't understand why it seems so difficult to take a position on the main issue, here. This update spends a lot of time talking about the balance team's ability to make changes to counter undesired gameplay. I don't think that was ever in doubt; anyone paying attention knows that the balance team has a large toolkit. What we want to know is your intentions GÇö do you plan to nerf entosis interceptors or not?
This issue is so fundamental that it poisons any other potential discussion on the topic of New Sov. Without a clear position on this one subject, none of the rest of the work that has been done has any fundamental meaning. This is a very harsh thing for me to say, but I can't really put it any more gently than this. For this, I apologize, but it has to be said for any forward progress to be made.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1397
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:45:47 -
[2] - Quote
To be more clear; "yes" is a perfectly valid answer to the question of "can interceptors fit the entosis link?" It's the NOT KNOWING that is poisoning the conversation.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1399
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:03:51 -
[3] - Quote
Capqu wrote:if the grid is contested inteceptors are actually useless guys, their lockrange is so pathetic that one or two damps means there is no way they can keep their entosis link active
i think the main issue around interceptors is their ability to move 100% safely behind camps and entosis uncontested systems which should be protected by camped choke points This is the core of the issue. As a sov haver of any size, I should be able to use the geography of my holdings in its defense. Being able to deny entry to my holdings should pay dividends in the security of my empire. Interceptors ignore all geography because, while traveling, they cannot be caught.
Interceptors also have superlative disengagement ability, which converts the entire process of defending sov from defeating a gang of rabble-rousers to keepign a large group of counter-interceptors in a central location during your primetime, then dispatching them as blips pop up on the Sov Radar of choice. No actual PvP occurs in this scenario, it's just two interceptors weakly applying the sov laser to the same target in an attempt to bore each other into submission.
Alternatively, I guess you could park a single supercap on every possible defensive target during your primetime. Thanks to fatigue, this is more viable than you'd think.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1400
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:08:28 -
[4] - Quote
BadAssMcKill wrote:Just nerf interceptor agility slightly, that way you can just instathrasher key constellations I've always been partial to the nuclear option here -- all ships, except shuttles and pods, are hard-locked to a minimum of 3s align time.
If Eve's server resources, code base, etc. improve to the point where a 500ms simulation rate is possible, then revert the change.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1400
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:25:50 -
[5] - Quote
Kaylee Fonza wrote:Arkon Olacar wrote:Jaro Essa wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. You won't have to kill the interceptor. With your own entosis link active on the structure or command node, no progress can be made towards the timer. Though, if you can't kill one interceptor, why should you have sov?. Sure, but no progress in either direction would be made while both links were active. You just reach a stalemate, where your fleet is rendered useless by a single interceptor, burning at 7-8km/s at 100-150km. That's just dumb mechanics. If the interceptor is flying at 100-150km, 1 celestis can make is useless. The interceptor disengages, and uses its superior agility and warp speed to move to another capturable object.
The celestis cannot keep up with an interceptor.
The ability for an interceptor to be countered while sitting at one beacon was never in question. The interceptor's ability to disengage and travel with impunity is the issue.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1407
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:28:32 -
[6] - Quote
afkalt wrote:So how is camping a gate at chokes for 4 hours different from defending structures for 4 hours? How is that not the same overhead on the players? It allows actual PvP to occur. Interceptors are optimized, first and foremost, to AVOID PvP.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1411
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 15:14:26 -
[7] - Quote
davet517 wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote: infinity months, once supercaps are no longer the end-all of nullsec fights. isk isn't power.
It's better, but I wouldn't say it makes isk irreverent either. How many entosis fit cruisers can you buy for a trillion isk? What it does do is make it really really hard to hold a sprawling empire just because you have that resource advantage. I think that a companion change is going to have to be made, though, that allows system resources to scale with the number of people who occupy it. Replacing anoms with plexing and mining missions would do it. Then, a 2000 strong alliance could occupy, be happy with, and defend a constellation or two, instead of feeling like they need a whole region or more. Given that Deklein is, by far, the densest region in eve, I have to agree that density should breed more density in such an exponential fashion.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1412
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 15:21:41 -
[8] - Quote
Agent Known wrote:In regards to the trollceptor fit, I can't even get a cap stable fitting with any of the interceptors ...and only a handful of them have the PG and low slots for the aux cores to make a MWD fit.
Plus, in doing so you're making them purpose-fit and useless for anything else. The defender has up to 40 minutes to contest an active system and pause all progress. This is assuming the interceptor makes it to the system to begin with.
Empires who hold enough space for their size will be able to counter any of this nonsense. For one thing, intel channels are a thing and neutrals will be reported long before they have a chance to capture anything. You are probably trying to fit an oversized prop mod to an interceptor. You want to fit a 1MN Microwarp Drive. Every interceptor can fit a 1mn mwd without fitting issues.
Also, train power grid management to 5. It's a rank 1 skill.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1412
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 15:26:48 -
[9] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: But yeah a 2x sebo inty can do 100 something km.
...with no tank and no utility and no dps.
It doesn't need these things to survive or be effective.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1413
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 15:32:19 -
[10] - Quote
A disturbing trend by the balance team has been to "over-buff" things and then tone them down (years later) if media attention shames them into it. Have you considered, conversely, to risk a thing being underpowered at the start, then boosting its effectiveness?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1445
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 23:08:42 -
[11] - Quote
Gonna quote myself here; please don't judge me too harshly.
Querns wrote:This issue is so fundamental that it poisons any other potential discussion on the topic of New Sov. Without a clear position on this one subject, none of the rest of the work that has been done has any fundamental meaning. This is a very harsh thing for me to say, but I can't really put it any more gently than this. For this, I apologize, but it has to be said for any forward progress to be made.
It looks like here on page 50 or 51 that this is exactly what is occurring GÇö-áthe conversation is completely stalled and impotent because no details were provided.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1448
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 05:21:39 -
[12] - Quote
Alexander McKeon wrote:Can we please stop obsessing over interceptors for a few minutes and get back to focusing on the root causes of why defending even well used space will be problematic? This would be nice; alas, we are in the Entosis Link posting ghetto.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1449
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 14:15:56 -
[13] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Dras Malar wrote:If you don't have sov, and you've never had sov, and you have no intention of having sov, or finding out what it means to get it or keep it, what are you even doing in this thread? I was never interested in playing n+1 supercap battles to contest sov but the upcoming changes make me very interested. So yeah I guess I do have intentions now, I guess I get to stay in the thread yay :) how many more SOE missions will you need to grind before you are ready for sov Yet again showing your ignorance. PS salvages missions not grind them...and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither. Was that useless post 189? edit: Tell you what, I'll drop corp to prevent that distracting you from the points in hand. I don't think it's out of line to say that, as a player who willingly admits to spending his time salvaging mission sites in empire, your opinions on sov are fairly irrelevant.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1449
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 14:18:19 -
[14] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:"and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither."
Try training comprehension to V Oh, I understood what you said just fine -- I just think you're a liar.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1449
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 14:23:02 -
[15] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:Eli Apol wrote:"and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither."
Try training comprehension to V Oh, I understood what you said just fine -- I just think you're a liar. Feel free to check the freely available PS spreadsheet and see just how much salvaging I've done over the past year...one evening when I was bored and my mains were otherwise disposed. Let me fetch that link for you. sec You're sure taking a lot of time to prove you aren't irrelevant to the discussion. Why not, instead, do something to prove you are relevant?
I feel like posting on a highsec salvaging character is not doing you any favors here.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1449
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 14:27:46 -
[16] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Many many alts post here, why not me, what've I done wrong? Argued my points? Pointed out inconsistencies in yours? Boohoo, #dealwithit Putting aside the shockingly poor quality of your posting in this thread, it's always curious to me why people "post on alts" on eve-o, when posting on a character with real, demonstrable credibility is so much more powerful.
Why should CCP listen to a person in a highsec salvaging corp for opinions on sov?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1462
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 16:31:54 -
[17] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. If we decide that the concerns expressed by some members of the community about trollcetors are likely to come true, we will take steps to nerf them before release. I want to be clear that the fact we have not announced any new restrictions on the Entosis Link yet isnGÇÖt an indication that we will not make any changes. We are intentionally waiting since initial forum reactions have traditionally been a poor foundation to build balance decisions on. We want to make sure thereGÇÖs enough time for everyone to take a deep breath.
Fair enough; thanks for the additional consideration in this matter.
A somewhat related question; in the most general, unspecific terms, without naming any particular ship or ship ability, is the concept of keeping invaders out of your space, or the ability to catch invaders before they are able to attack your sovereignty structures, something that should be considered a valid defensive option?
Or, perhaps to put it more plainly GÇö-áare attackers considered to be entitled to choosing their desired battlefield, or should defenders be allowed to use tactics like gatecamping as a valid defense of their holdings?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1462
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 16:44:29 -
[18] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance. Definitely GÇö-áI understand the concerns. I just wanted to keep it fresh in everyone's minds, since it's pretty obvious where I was going with that line of thought. Some serious deliberation on the current state of interdiction nullification is called for, I think; especially in the face of things like covert ops cloaking ships, Black Ops Battleship bridging, titan bridging (as useful as these are with a 5LY range, at any rate,) and wormholes already allowing attackers to circumvent static gate camps.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 05:10:48 -
[19] - Quote
Kristian Hackett wrote: I wanted to highlight this - of all of the mechanics coming into play, the constellation nodes seemed to be the most awkward one. I understand CCP wanting to spread the fight throughout multiple systems in order to ease server load, however that immediately screws over the defending team, especially if you have multiple alliances (read: not blue to each other) sharing the same constellation.
This is pretty offtopic for the entosis link thread, specifically, but you do raise an excellent point. I agree that capture nodes should prefer to spawn in systems in the constellation where the defending alliance has least one sovereignty object (ihub, tcu, station.)
I will remember this when more relevant forum threads arise on the topic of capture nodes, and pass it along to the Goonswarm Federation CSM reps as well. It's not to steal your thunder, or anything, but I feel like it's a legitimate concern and it'd be a shame if you, specifically, missed the thread, forgot, or otherwise were unavailable to reiterate the point.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
|
|