EVE Search - Sticky:[Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 76 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 101	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:55:13 - [301] - Quote Super Noodle wrote: Fozzie, can you please scrap this entire plan you've come up with to rework sov and start over from scratch. It's garbage. This.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1033	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:56:07 - [302] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: This is the reason for the "no remote reps" condition on active Links. how about instead, you fix logistics so it doesn't cause this type of stuff. I'd suggest making all remote assist mods go 'ancillary'.
Sven Viko VIkolander Friends and Feminists 332	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:56:33 - [303] - Quote After reading the blogs / posts of people who are much more knowledgeable than I am, this is my considered judgment about the Entosis Link mechanic: 1) The goals of the mechanic are heading in the right direction for sov control and harassment. That is pretty uncontroversial. 2) However, the worst part about the Entosis Link as a mechanic is that it is completely boring. I can't think of more lackluster mechanic for fighting over a grid than "orbit at 25-250km, do nothing." It is even more empty as a game play mechanic than the faction war mechanic of sitting in a plex until the timer runs out. Not the least of which is because it will be boring to have to be the entosis link pilot (/alt pilot more likely), even worse than being the cyno pilot / alt. At the very least, why can't the mechanic for taking control of a grid in sov simply be that used in faction war, of running down a timer while in range of a beacon or structure? In that case, there would not be any need to balance a module--and one can be confident that players will immediately find the most optimal, risk averse way of using the Entosis Link, and use it in no other way. 3) If the entosis link as a module and a mechanic has to stay, I think it should have the following design features: A. It should have a relatively small size (e.g., comparable to most other modules, such as 5m3), so that it can be fit in most cargo bays and fit using a mobile depot as/when needed. B) The original dev blog states that the drawbacks to using the link are: " the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes." However, I would suggest no other drawbacks: Allow ships with an entosis link fit and active to do all other "normal" PVP activities, such as MWD, web/scram/use other high slot modules like guns and neuts. However, what about using an MJD with an entosis link active? I think it should still be allowed and simply cancel the cycle, presumably just like flying out of range would cancel the cycle. C) I want to plug this hear since it is a fantastic suggestion being made by a lot of people in null: There should be local chat delay in null, and a sov upgrade should be no local chat delay, and this upgrade should be able to be disabled by the entosis link....this needs to happen if only to combat how risk averse people are in null when everyone at this point in EVE knows which fights they can win, and which they can't (in which case, they dock). Intel needs to be harder to acquire, and it needs to be something that can be disrupted.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 624	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:56:56 - [304] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Only the largest alliances really have a chance of holding even a single region when faced with opportunistic and agile enemies. If this isn't a design goal, it should be. The largest player organizations shouldn't be able to control more than the largest named area to begin with. irrelevants constantly seem to think that they will get to own space the larger alliances don't want they won't they will, instead, be buchered mercilessly if they try and the space will be left fallow because everyone loves stomping on ten highseccers who think they have what it takes
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 592	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:57:19 - [305] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Only the largest alliances really have a chance of holding even a single region when faced with opportunistic and agile enemies. If this isn't a design goal, it should be. The largest player organizations shouldn't be able to control more than the largest named area to begin with. this is a pretty romantic idea but it breaks down in practice due to the geography of eve in order to live in places like the drone regions, period basis, and most of the south, you either need to own or be friendly with the folks in regions closer to empire or your space is completely worthless fortunately deklein does not fall prey to this so personally i'm okay with the idea, for what it's worth
Princess Cherista State War Academy Caldari State 28	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:58:18 - [306] - Quote Guys I got it. Dont let the sov laser be fitted to fast, agile, nullified, uncatchable ships like an interceptor = problem solved. Highsec and lowsec guys who say inty gangs are easily countered and have no combat viability when fitted for speed get out.
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 458	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:59:03 - [307] - Quote xttz wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: The stats for the T1 module seem pretty good. The stats for the T2 version are completely off. 25km vs 250km, are you high? The best way to determine who has grid control is by limiting the range on the module. If you've won the fight and have killed/chased off any fleet that actually poses a threat, why should you then give two *** about some crap sitting 200km off? Restrict the range of the module to 25/30km (if not less), it forces you to slap your ** down on the ihub if you wish to RF it (which is only right). You could potentially look at a speed reduction while the module is active (on top of the warping restriction). The key feature currently missing is risk - if you want to use the module, you should have to commit to it, and put assets at risk. Currently there is little risk if you can just kite while the 2 minutes run down and then warp off. I'm curious to know if CCP have considered different sizes of Entosis Link. For example: Small Entosis Link (frigates / destroyers): 25km-40km range Medium Entosis Link (cruisers / BCs): 40km-75km range Large Entosis Link (battleships): 75-125km range XL Entosis Link (capitals): 125km+ range Building on this somewhat, what if each link size gave a modifier to capture time? The bigger the ship used, the more risk involved and therefore the faster the capture time. This is counter-balanced by the already-mentioned higher cycle time for capital ships. Small T1: 2.0 modifier Small T2: 1.75 modifier Medium T1: 1.5 modifier Medium T2: 1.25 modifier Large T1: 1.0 modifier Large T2: 0.9 modifier XL T1: 0.9 modifier XL T2: 0.8 modifier If someone wants to contest sov in a battleship they'll spend half the time as someone using a frigate.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 592	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:01:00 - [308] - Quote Princess Cherista wrote: Highsec and lowsec guys who say inty gangs are easily countered and have no combat viability when fitted for speed get out they are easily countered if they are actually scrapping for a fight trollceptors don't do this, they just hit what they can and run away if anything at all comes on grid
Eugene Kerner TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory. 1538	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:01:10 - [309] - Quote I dont care for small ships. I dont care for Sov. Whats with the announced capital changes...where is the thread for that? Left and right people of my alliance are unsubbing and selling their ships because of your ragged information policy (soundcloud interview). TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] " -á CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 592	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:04:08 - [310] - Quote Eugene Kerner wrote: I dont care for small ships. I dont care for Sov. Whats with the announced capital changes...where is the thread for that? Left and right people of my alliance are unsubbing and selling their ships because of your ragged information policy (soundcloud interview). yeah i gotta agree that using a third party blog site audio interview as the primary conduit for actual details regarding the new sov initiative is pretty awful it is this hilarious situation where anyone who is interested in actually participating in the game post-summer-expansions has to scrounge all available news sites, blogs, etc to actually get the information needed while official forums/devblog communique somehow manage to spend hundreds of words saying absolutely nothing (such as post #1 in this thread)

stoicfaux 5491	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:06:51 - [311] - Quote The trollceptor is sounding like solo back-hacking in Planetside (the original one.) Someone flies to an enemy base way in the rear, drains the base's power so it goes neutral and then spends 15 minutes hacking it to their side. It wasn't a big deal in Planetside since there were a million players online at anytime, the map made it pretty clear it was happening (you could see the base's power level,) and outfits (aka corps) were organized enough to go deal with the problems in the rear. A single person could back-hack in Planetside, but they had to bring an ANT (fuel truck,) had to bring their own logistics (either a portal supply truck, or hack enemy terminals ) in order to have the ammo/equipment, and had to destroy various items to speed up the energy drain. The biggest contrast I see between solo back-hacking in planetside and the trollceptor is the amount of work involved. The trollceptor just orbits at 250km, waits X minutes, and then is done. Whereas the planetside solo back-hacker was busier than a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest. They had to have various skills, had to travel quite a ways, had to be able to drive a fuel truck, were vulnerable to static base defenses (turrets, mines,) needed a good bit of time to drain the base, and finally needed 15 minutes to hack the base when it went neutral from running out power. Hacking rendering you immobile and defenseless, btw. Meanwhile, the enemy had the ability to hot-drop people on back hackers via a free and fast orbital drop before the power drained and the base went neutral. Back hacking wasn't very effective unless you had an organized force willing to drain the base quickly and then to defend it from the initial wave of casual defenders up to organized outfits dropping/flying in. Meaning, solo back-hacking wasn't practical, you needed a real force to pull it off. Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Ukiah Oregan Lithomancers 17	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:07:51 - [312] - Quote Entross Link - just another bad idea this is a game with ships w/weapons that blows sht up - PVP is about blowing sht up there really is no need to discuss game mechanics about this concept - it's just a bad idea much like timers, this is poor game play you want to make null sec lawless and dynamic - remove SOV mechanics altogether - it's pretty clear CCP doesn't know how to keep it balanced or develop new game play dynamics at the heart of all warfare mechanics should be PVP eliminate stations in null sec eliminate SOV mechanics actually develop the POS into a workable, game play item corps drop and defend your POS where u want it you want a specific MOON or space - defend it or take it
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 640	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:09:46 - [313] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Only the largest alliances really have a chance of holding even a single region when faced with opportunistic and agile enemies. If this isn't a design goal, it should be. The largest player organizations shouldn't be able to control more than the largest named area to begin with. I don't think you get the point. A smaller organization would thus be unable to control more than a single constellation. And even then, with mandatory 4 hour daily CTAs, and without reserve manpower and reserve timezones to rotate into when people burnout. 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?"
Leeloo Fee Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:10:49 - [314] - Quote Hi CCP. Here are my 2 cents on this game and the upcoming changes extended with a few other things I dont like about EVE... . remove 'Truesec' A lot of space is just empty because the space is worthless. Rats are bad, no Officer spawns, low on Anoms. Remove this and people will more likely go out to fill this void. Therefore 0.0 will be attractive more. People will split out, making new corps/alliances and grinding SOV. This is how you break up the power blocks! If every 0.0 has the same sec-status all players will have their chance to pick a constellation they can live from and operate from there. Ask yourself: Why is 0.0 different from 0.0? . re-evalute the entosis stuff This makes no sense at all. I will not log on every day and wait for any neut to come by and try to capture SOV and fight him off... This will be a fulltime job. EVE takes too much off my free time either. So when I log on only to scare off those entosis frigs ceptors, life in 0.0 will become senseless. All we want is something between security (once you own and pay for sov), secure income, fun and fleets. . remove jump fatigue As I said EVE takes too much of my free time. We play this game for fun and not getting paid as you do, CCP eployees. We are paying subscriptions and your salary for a 'timer', sitting in space and cannot jump. If it goes like your believes we should quit or jobs and play EVE 20 hours a day, huh? Come on... . time dilation Do something! I don't care if you simply throw more hardware on it or re-evaluate the whole thing. Limit local count, do multiprocessing, load-balancing etc... Think about to remove a lot of mathematics from the game. If you cannot calculate the load in real time, your architecture/game design is wrong. Ask yourself: Do we really need thiiiiiiiiiiis complexity in the game? A module with 15 variants, implants, skills, bonus, blah blah with counter-less attributes all interacting with each other... You really thought you can calculate this in real time? For 2000 people on a grid? "Do you think this is air you are breathing?" If I want a real spaceship simulation I'd go for Kerbal Space Program! Ti-Di hits you with 50 T3 on a grid... In 2015... Nice "#MMORPG" you built... . Interceptor Bubble Immunity This is the worst change I have ever seen. Ceptors have their benefit. This change was overpowered. Only T3 with a subsystem can do this. Let's keep it that way... . Dreads What structure (ok maybe a POS once a year) should I hit with it? Combined entosis with jump fatigue makes capitals even more worthless... . Cloakly campers Another thing a lot of people are asking for and you simply ignore. For the love of god and our nature please do something that people cannot lock down your hard-earned and payed SOV with a single alt and cloak. Invent something like a Cloak-Jammer (like Cyno jammer) or make the cloak to use fuel. The current mechanic badly hurts in-game environment and real-life. People wasting electricity and produce carbon dioxide just to lock you down. They log in, cloak and let the computer run all day long while AFK... Make green IT CCP! Thats all I got for now... Cya
TheSmokingHertog TALIBAN EXPRESS 298	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:11:00 - [315] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: We can use everything from module price... Please, please, learn from experience. Price is not a sensible balance mechanic in any way. Remember, players will build just a few Titans after CCP introduces them... oh wait.
Roman Lynch Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda 31	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:12:11 - [316] - Quote Quote: Calm down Francis. you just made the list....
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 63	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:13:30 - [317] - Quote Does not seem too hard to counter this..just put your own entosis module on the structure...bam problem solved... or spread a fleet of sniping corms around the structure.... insta pop ceptors.... All I see is goon tears and they are filling up my cup We will be enjoying this new form of SOV ..and any alliances that cannot hold their sov...will naturally contract back to a point where they have the manpower to hold it. The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 329	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:15:21 - [318] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: yeah i gotta agree that using a third party blog site audio interview as the primary conduit for actual details regarding the new sov initiative is pretty awful I hate those devs that go live on air and actively discuss changes with notable members of the playerbase too.
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:15:41 - [319] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: this is a pretty romantic idea but it breaks down in practice due to the geography of eve If we can't dream in a fantasy game, where can we dream? Anyway this whole trollceptor thing is a red herring anyway, and I think most folks know it. The real interesting part is the sov capture mechanics, and we'll never see it if infrastructure elements are too easy to defend. It would be great to see an Eve where anyone is potentially at some risk of having fun.
MukkBarovian Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 33	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:17:20 - [320] - Quote IF I SHOW UP WITH 50 STINKY PETES AND SPEND 10 SECONDS AT A TIME SHOOTING ENTOSIS SHIPS DO I CONTROL THE GRID? ITS NOT LIKE IT WILL BE HARD TO SNIPE THINGS THAT CAN'T BE REPPED. OH GOD PLEASE GET TIRED OF ME SNIPING YOUR BATTLESHIPS AND PUT ENTOSIS ON A TRIAGE CARRIER. I CAN ONLY GET SO ERECT.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 595	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:17:33 - [321] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: If we can't dream in a fantasy game, where can we dream? eve is a sci-fi game not fantasy checkmate b*tch
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6166	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:19:07 - [322] - Quote Roman Lynch wrote: Quote: Calm down Francis. you just made the list.... Excellent! Will there be prizes? Oh, WILL THERE BE CAKE? I hope so, I love cake. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Alexis Nightwish 121	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:19:24 - [323] - Quote 1) Entosis links, while they are active, should warp scram the ship they are fitted to, and disable jump drives. Set the scram strength to something really high like 1000 to prevent any chance of stabbing out of it. Basically like a HIC's infini-point, but it's an infini-scram. I foresee a meta where every alliance has to keep an alt in a Moa w/ a T1 E-link (or interceptor w/ T2) at every one of its stations/TCUs/iHubs to prevent introllceptors from lawl capping by keeping its link up during the whole of PT. Some will say "well if you can't defend your space maybe you shouldn't have it." It's one thing to have to use your space, it's another to be chained to it. What if we gasp want to roam? Others will say "If you can't kill an interceptor blah blah blah..." well yes you can, but it's a PITA and no one wants to be on introllceptor guard duty. The point of the new SOV system was to encourage fun, right? If E-links self scam, MWD (and MJD) cannot be used and you won't see Svipul's and interceptors orbiting at 150km because an AB won't provide enough speed to prevent them from being sniped, or caught by a defending interceptor. 2) Entosis links should NOT give a capture speed penalty when fitted to capital ships, but they SHOULD give a cycle time multiplier so if they are used to capture, they must commit (see above how jump drives would be disabled). Using a cycle time multiplier of 5x as an example, if a capital with a T2 E-link starts a capture, the capture process won't actually start for 10 minutes, and each time the E-link cycles that traps the capital on grid for 10 minutes. CCP continues to gut capitals. I would like to see capitals in use in SOV warfare. By letting them capture at the normal rate, but locking them on grid if they do so (by disabling the jump drive), there's a risk/reward scenario that might encourage their use. Don't forget that a defender in an Ibis can halt the capture progress of an Aeon. CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 595	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:19:39 - [324] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: yeah i gotta agree that using a third party blog site audio interview as the primary conduit for actual details regarding the new sov initiative is pretty awful I hate those devs that go live on air and actively discuss changes with notable members of the playerbase too. yeah actually i do find it pretty tiring to have to slog through two hours of crap in order to unearth the nuggets of information i need to actually be able to play the game because there is some fear or impotence in the arena of even echoing the information on the official communications mechanisms
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 640	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:20:08 - [325] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Does not seem too hard to counter this..just put your own entosis module on the structure...bam problem solved... or spread a fleet of sniping corms around the structure.... insta pop ceptors.... All I see is goon tears and they are filling up my cup We will be enjoying this new form of SOV ..and any alliances that cannot hold their sov...will naturally contract back to a point where they have the manpower to hold it. The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space. What will happen to any alliance that can't win on the field is that they will lose all their space. The system is very brittle in terms of points of failure. You can't afford to lose on the defensive. You can try reffing all of pure blind, we might even withdraw from many areas that we don't live in. But we won't allow you to use it. 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?"
Corey Lean GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 71	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:20:36 - [326] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 329	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:21:47 - [327] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: yeah actually i do find it pretty tiring to have to slog through two hours of crap in order to unearth the nuggets of information i need to actually be able to play the game because there is some fear or impotence in the arena of even echoing the information on the official communications mechanisms Nothing that interesting was really said except 'Trollceptors can easily get nerf-batted if they get out of hand' There ya go, saved you 2 hours and about 150 pages of Goon forum posts.
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:23:47 - [328] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: A smaller organization would thus be unable to control more than a single constellation. And even then, with mandatory 4 hour daily CTAs, and without reserve manpower and reserve timezones to rotate into when people burnout. Sounds like more churn and more activity to me! I guarantee that while the few big players in the current sov map are clutching at pearls, there are hundreds of smaller organizations who have started talking about what holding a constellation might mean for their game. Most of them will fail. What does it matter? The point is in having fun in the attempt. A constantly-changing sov landscape, where assets are lost and there is a high rate of burnout, is vastly preferable to the stagnant blue donut that we made fun of the Chinese for on Serenity.
Andrea Keuvo Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 310	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:25:02 - [329] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: Maximus Andendare wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: Hero owns 98 systems in Catch, and 38 stations. We now need 136 mauluses to spend 4 hours a night sitting on an ihub/station. Except of course if these trollceptors have any kind of weapons, it can kill the maulus, so we partner them with a RLML caracal to prevent that from happening. There, we've kept one of the most densely populated regions in the game save from trollceptors, and it only costs us 1088 man hours per night! I think you're missing the point. (Not just you, but you stated your (major Sov holder's) point eloquently enough.) If it's a bother to defend your sovereignty, then 1) maybe you should question the amount you possess and 2) if you're not willing to put forth the effort to defend it, then perhaps it should be lost. I'm not speaking specifically to the trollceptor "ruckus" per se; it's more addressing the complaints that defending sovereignty will be too difficult. Sovereignty shouldn't so easy to defend that you can do it with a corp full of dis-interested recruits. If you want to keep sov, then it should be something that you and your corp want to defend. As it is, CCP is giving Sov holders the ability to lock out people from reinforcing their structures until a time set by the owner. If the owner can't find it in them to defend their home in a nice four hour block of their choosing, then it sounds more like the sov holder should reassess their priorities. Bolded the important part. You've hit the nail on the head here. These mechanics cause too much grief for the defender to be worth the benefits of holding sov. The end result will be people moving out of sov null, with sov holders largely staging and living out of nearby NPC nullsec or lowsec, holding regions as a form of content generation rather than actually living there. These mechanics as currently proposed would kill off nullsec, not revitalise it. This is 100% the problem and Fozzie refuses to acknowledge it because he can look at the numbers and see that "sh*t tons of isk are made in nullsec anoms" or whatever he said. The numbers I would like to see is how much ISK is being made from anoms grouped by truesec level because I have a feeling that a large percentage of the isk is being generated in the small number of systems with -.6 truesec or better. Why is this an issue? Because under occupancy based fozziesov somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of nullsec is no longer worth the effort to live in. The only way sov null systems can provide hisec levels of income for their residents is through the Ihub upgrades that cause anomalies to automatically respawn each time they are completed. The type and number of each anomoly that can spawn is influenced by the military level of the system and the level of sov upgrade but is also hard capped by the system's truesec - a fully upgraded mil 5 -.4 system is never going to have a sanctum automatically spawned. An 'average' sov null system with -.4 truesec at mil 5 and fully upgraded has a bunch of anomalies on scan. However, the vast majority give less than hisec missioning level of income so people only run a limited set of sites - forsaken hub, forsaken rally point, haven, and sanctum. The sample -.4 fully upgraded and at mil 5 gets 2x forsaken hub, 2x forsaken rallypoint, and 1x haven. This allows the system to support 2-3 players running sites at the same time making around or slightly above hisec level income. If you don't have the level 5 upgrade you lose one forsaken hub and the haven, meaning now this system can provide hisec level income for only one pilot. In systems below -.4 truesec it is even worse. The level 5 upgrade for anomalies is too large to fit in a jump freighter and can only be brought in using a regular freighter via a hisec wormhole. A freighter sized wormhole to hisec doesn't come along every day so getting this upgrade installed is not a trivial matter. In the current sov system this upgrade is protected by the massive investment of grinding the hp of defensive SBUs, dropping/defending your own SBUs, and then grinding the 75M+ HP of the Ihub over 2 reinforcement timers. Under fozziesov I can come reinforce your Ihub, and then come back and win the 2nd timer and your Ihub and all its upgrades go boom, effectively making the system 100% useless to you until you can again find a wormhole from hisec to bring in the level 5 upgrade and start the process over again. The point here is, why in the hell would anyone want to do this? Right now these systems are typically rented out and are protected by the sheer HP grind and the knowledge that they will be defended by the landlord. Under fozziesov, without committing a supercapital fleet an attacker could come and reinforce 10 ihubs. This creates 10 timers which all cannot possibly be defended. So while this probably kills rental empires as we know them it also makes nullsec systems below -.5 or -.6 truesec into space ghettos that are not worth the effort to live in. Let's say your smallish corp takes an unused -.3 and goes thru the effort to upgrade it. It will only be a matter of time before a larger pvp alliance comes along to kick down your castle. So why would you do this when you can stay in hisec and make as much/more isk with incursions/missions? An occupancy based sov system where the best systems can support at most a half a dozen occupants and the worst aren't worth occupying at all is doomed to end in failure. Anomoly quality needs to be decoupled from truesec so that over time even the lower quality systems are worth living in.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 595	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:26:01 - [330] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: yeah actually i do find it pretty tiring to have to slog through two hours of crap in order to unearth the nuggets of information i need to actually be able to play the game because there is some fear or impotence in the arena of even echoing the information on the official communications mechanisms Nothing that interesting was really said except 'Trollceptors can easily get nerf-batted if they get out of hand' There ya go, saved you 2 hours and about 150 pages of Goon forum posts. actually there was a lot more on it relevant details include the cementing of afk cloaking as a game mechanic into the future, designs on removing immediate mode local in nullsec, and the castration of supercapital ships into fleet boosters (which can't happen until the destiny rewrite is finished anyways so lol if you think the fleet boosting aspect will come before the gelding does) but yeah i could see where cherrypicking the only thing relevant to your argument would help against someone not paying attention



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 76 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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