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) |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
538
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:25:06 -
[1411] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Sigras wrote:Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?
If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.
Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?
The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that. You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there.
he never said that was the extent of his forces, just that was the forces on that current contested grid.
but don't let that slant your viewpoint or let you massage what was said to allow you to repeat some parroted line like a lobotomised meth addict. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:25:43 -
[1412] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Freedom Nadd wrote:gascanu wrote:i really don't understand why CCP wants those sov tools to be fitted on ceptors/frigs; after years and years of needing caps/supercaps for taking sov, now we are going to completely the other extreme around, you only need one ceptor....
like really, can anyone find this a bit ********? how about some balance? why this link "must" be allowed on ceptors? why would anyone use another ship type for harassing sov holders around?
a big fight with tidi and caps/supercaps on field can last hours, so while an alliance is involved in one for example, a gang of 20 ceptors/bombers will be able to reinforce half a region with proposed mechanics... really CCP you are going to extreme with this instead of a more "balanced" option A basic fact so many who started playing post 2007 fail to realise .... CCP are the biggest trolls involved in this game. The whole ethos of the company was based around making their game as hardcore as possible. EVE grew too big for them, they had to change to a more normal interaction with customers, and then the unmentionable incident happened spawning the yearly popularity contest and Greed is Good, reinforcing that at its core CCP does not give a damn about its players. What we are now seeing is CCP desperately trying to reset the last 7 years. Do they care if their subs drop back to 2007 levels? Not a chance because with their jettisoning of WoD and Seattle they can now concentrate on trolling its players again. They do not want stability, they do not WANT to deal with large fights. If anything they would be perfectly happy with sub 20k online players. This is the CCP we deserve. Keep calm and drink from the cup that is given to you. The developers we deserve. And we're the worst people.
Why did it turn out this wayyyyy
Discussion Entosis Link Trolling and Forum Posting
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
99
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:27:34 -
[1413] - Quote
Just reposting what seems to have gained some traction in case it was lost in the pages:
In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel:
I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things.
- As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems.
- Smaller ships, such as interceptors *hint hint*, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on.
- Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel.
- The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links.
- Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought.
- If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now?
What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups.
What are your thoughts? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
922
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:29:27 -
[1414] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Sigras wrote:Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?
If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.
Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?
The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that. You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system. I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there. A doesn't imply B.
Well then there's no problem.
Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.
So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.
Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:33:47 -
[1415] - Quote
It doesn't matter for fast you align etc in other fits because the untargeted area of effect interdiction will stop you no matter what
unless you're interdiction nullified... so basically an interceptor or a nullified t3. Some doctrines do use it though (mostly the shooting one person then running tengu)
I do get that people like to be able to just ignore the mechanic. It's nice to not be jammable or dampable when you get in certain undockable ships, 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.
|
Freedom Nadd
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:33:59 -
[1416] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Sigras wrote:Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?
If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.
Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?
The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that. You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system. I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there. A doesn't imply B. Well then there's no problem. Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb. So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes... HTFU. Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.
Or could it just be bad game design and a instinctive dislike of the "Plexing 4 Sov" themepark that CCP seems intent on inflicting on us. |
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
661
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:34:59 -
[1417] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Sigras wrote:Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?
If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.
Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?
The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that. You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system. I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there. A doesn't imply B. Well then there's no problem. Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb. So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes... HTFU. Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.
Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all...
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?"
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:36:00 -
[1418] - Quote
Freedom Nadd wrote:Or could it just be bad game design and a instinctive dislike of the "Plexing 4 Sov" themepark that CCP seems intent on inflicting on us. I can't wait to grind some GSF Loyalty Points to prove that I participated in defending deklein from massadeath of moa who committed to ending our 0.0 dream
Demonstrating one's loyalty to the cause is the greatest joy in a cold and harsh eve online
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:36:15 -
[1419] - Quote
Already published this on The Mittani Dot Com but this is the correct thread so I am leaving it here as well.
I propose an additional mechanic be added called Entosis Shock. Entosis shock would be very simple in operation. If a ship with an active Entosis Link stops capturing something before the capture is complete it is immobilized for twenty seconds.
This key is to give an interceptor that warped onto the target structure time to catch the attacker, or let a cruiser or destroyer warped to zero by a combat prober close and point. In short it would attach a risk to choosing to run away when reds come to chase you off. The choices forced on the attacker when challenged would be far more interesting than under the current setup. Do they burn off right away to maximize their odds of escape, or stick it out and see if they can kite while still on grid? If an attacker faces a real risk of getting caught do they fit for combat or max speed?
Not only would it give attackers a reason to worry about losing their ships, this idea would work quite well with the lore. Entosis implies that the capsuleer running the Entosis Link is either enveloping the operational systems of that structure with his mind or injecting his mind into those systems. ItGÇÖs hardly a stretch that the premature end of that process could be incapacitating for a brief time.
If this suggestion was adopted a wider variety of counters would become possible. The only real way to catch a fleeing speed fit interceptor sitting 110km away, even if it cannot warp, is with a faster frigate. With Entosis shock a bomber could actually sneak up on the target and use their lack of a decloaking delay to hit it with a sensor dampener. Another interceptor could fit a damp for much the same purpose. Ewar would be extremely dangerous. Attacking pilots would face a choice between a GÇ£distance tankGÇ¥ to prevent getting caught or being near the target to make sensor damps less effective. A red in local would become a potential threat for the attacker to evaluate instead of just an audience to be tormented. This mechanic would also be minimally disruptive to actual combat; so long as they stayed close enough to the sov structure being reinforced the attacker could fly their ship completely normally.
The real problem with the trollceptor is the fact that it cannot be killed unless the pilot screws up or is horribly unlucky. Blowing up spaceships is fun for the defender and will encourage them to defend their space. Chasing uncatchable ships for hours on end will just motivate them to stop logging in. Losing spaceships repeatedly will discourage an attacker who is just in it for the laughs; bathing in the impotent tears of the defender will cause them to troll harder. Whatever changes the dev team chooses to make to the Entosis Link need to address this by making the attacker killable instead of merely counterable. To leave it as is will make content denial the new rule of nullsec, same as the old rule. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:39:58 -
[1420] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:afkalt wrote: Well then there's no problem.
Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.
So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.
Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.
Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all... Something about off grid boosts, falcon alts, etc etc
^^ 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
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:40:46 -
[1421] - Quote
Actually, only like nadot renters ***use bubbles now.
Everyone else doesn't because roaming gangs most prefer to simply ignore bubbles, with... guess what???
Yeah, interceptor gangs.
*** Only if there are renters there, most of nadot sov is not rented out simply because there's so much. So it's just empty except for I guess moons being mined.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
538
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:45:19 -
[1422] - Quote
totally not a troll post at all...
if you start an entosis module cycling then at the end of the module cycle, if its unsucessfull in any way you get the dreaded Entosis FATIGUE! where you cant re engage an entosis module for 45 minutes and you cannot post on the eve-o forums for a day.
lol! |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
103
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:49:29 -
[1423] - Quote
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:I propose an additional mechanic be added called Entosis Shock. Entosis shock would be very simple in operation. If a ship with an active Entosis Link stops capturing something before the capture is complete it is immobilized for twenty seconds. So the moment it gets hit with a damp/ecm it is stuck and will most likely be immediately probed out and killed. I'm really not a fan of root mechanics and this also would ensure anything that is not sporting a brick tank is a non-option. Which of course means getting a brick tank past the few choke points to contest all the AFK style empires further into null would be incredibly difficult.
Over all, a terrible idea. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2130
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:51:29 -
[1424] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Actually, only like nadot renters ***use bubbles now.
Everyone else doesn't because roaming gangs most prefer to simply ignore bubbles, with... guess what???
Yeah, interceptor gangs.
*** Only if there are renters there, most of nadot sov is not rented out simply because there's so much. So it's just empty except for I guess moons being mined. I would argue that interceptors were chosen as popularity because of bubbles. People might be willing to use other things more often if clusterbubbles weren't a thing.
Not advocating anything there, just observing |
Sigras
Conglomo
1014
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:53:11 -
[1425] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Sigras wrote:Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?
If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.
Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?
The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that. You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system. I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there. A doesn't imply B. you two idiots are completely missing the point...
Say CCP makes the link module 1 PG and 1 CPU with no cap cost and no other effects, sov warfare will be vagabonds and ishtars because up til now that is the one thing they're not good at in 0.0
In addition to being cheap, risk averse, hard to kill, difficult to catch and lethal in groups, they'll also be able to take and hold sov. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
923
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:54:07 -
[1426] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:afkalt wrote: Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.
So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.
Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.
Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all...
Or maybe I have higher expectations of what defending things ought to be.
So at least we've bottomed it out now. The "problem"...sorry - witch you're trying hunt - is nullification. The same thing regularly cried about, because it makes inattentive bears, sad pandas. |
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:57:37 -
[1427] - Quote
If the desire is to have grid superiority to put the thing on the thing to do the thing, then thing should require 100% attention of the capsuleer to the point of his ship essentially being just out there where he has no way of possibly achieving the objective and focusing on fighting and defending his ship (let alone speed tanking/trolling).
This should be accomplished through a completely immersive interface that requires his direct control and input. Originally I proposed the following: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5546663#post5546663
In essence this module could provide a bridge that is the way to bring in a dust514 interface or a Valkyrie interface, to provide some objective that the capsuleer running the entosis link must achieve, that keeps him fully engaged (and preferably entertained, since this is a game after all).
However, since "This is Eve"...oh wait, not the cool vid, but the harsh reality that most updates and features are primarily numbers tweaking using already existing code and interfaces, perhaps a minigame THAT ISN'T THE EXPLORATION MINI-GAME, but rather something simple like a pop-up window where the capsuleer needs to use his arrow keys to literally keep a thing on a thing, while random factors make the thing not want to be on the thing or whatever (SOMETHING THAT IS EASY TO ADD TO ALREADY EXISTING CODE), and call it a manual calibration or override or whatever the hell.
Point is, make the Entosis module be the thing that you click to INTERFACE with something that is completely immersive or just partially, but TOTALLY actively involved so that the capsuleer has to choose whether to hit the objective or pilot his ship, but it is impossible to do both well. Do this by whatever means is the easiest to implement since the desire is to keep it simple, and then possibly expand to more awesome things later (like the Valkyrie or Dust type ideas).
Harry Saq for CSM X
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:58:32 -
[1428] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Actually, only like nadot renters ***use bubbles now.
Everyone else doesn't because roaming gangs most prefer to simply ignore bubbles, with... guess what???
Yeah, interceptor gangs.
*** Only if there are renters there, most of nadot sov is not rented out simply because there's so much. So it's just empty except for I guess moons being mined. I would argue that interceptors were chosen as popularity because of bubbles. People might be willing to use other things more often if clusterbubbles weren't a thing. Not advocating anything there, just observing Well at least in dek it's less of clusterbubbles but Sabres waiting to catch you...
But if you can just ignore the sabre because the bubble does nothing, it's a nice bonus to a a ship that moves very fast
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
661
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:02:03 -
[1429] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:afkalt wrote: Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.
So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.
Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.
Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all... Or maybe I have higher expectations of what defending things ought to be. So at least we've bottomed it out now. The "problem"...sorry - witch you're trying hunt - is nullification. The same thing regularly cried about, because it makes inattentive bears sad pandas.
How exactly would you, defend sov and deal with every other ceptor that comes to entosis your stuff?
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?"
|
Zazad Antollare
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:04:15 -
[1430] - Quote
im wondering if fozzie liked any idea in this thread or it just a waste of words |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:05:34 -
[1431] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:afkalt wrote: Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.
So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.
Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.
Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all... Or maybe I have higher expectations of what defending things ought to be. So at least we've bottomed it out now. The "problem"...sorry - witch you're trying hunt - is nullification. The same thing regularly cried about, because it makes inattentive bears sad pandas. How exactly would you, defend sov and deal with every other ceptor that comes to entosis your stuff? I think the intention is that you can't. This will shake up sov, unlike well... fatigue
^^ 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
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:07:02 -
[1432] - Quote
Zazad Antollare wrote:im wondering if fozzie liked any idea in this thread or it just a waste of words Hmm
Actually, I'm wondering if fozzie even read any idea in this thead
This is what I think will happen: "hey, thanks for the feedback, here's our new and improved** entosis link" **it's the same one they had earlier, which they didn't share the details of "ok, since everyone should like it, we're good to go for release
and then people who make interceptors became uberrich and quit eve
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
661
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:11:55 -
[1433] - Quote
What the political meta needs to counter this change in mechanics... is a real blue donut to keep the smaller groups out.
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?"
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:13:01 -
[1434] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:What the political meta needs to counter this change in mechanics... is a real blue donut to keep the smaller groups out. Why do you think the dev blog is called "politics by other means"
CCP intends to use these mechanics (other means) to enforce a change in politics.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
661
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:14:01 -
[1435] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:What the political meta needs to counter this change in mechanics... is a real blue donut to keep the smaller groups out. Why do you think the dev blog is called "politics by other means" CCP intends to use these mechanics (other means) to enforce a change in politics.
One up CCP - now the coalitions can't be bothered to fight each other. Mordus Angels equivalents are keeping us busy playing whack-a-mole in space.
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?"
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4020
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:14:37 -
[1436] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:They don't show netflix legally outside of US :/ Yes, they do.Alavaria Fera wrote:Though the poor chaps that have to clean the thread... shrug Thank you for your consideration.GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:i honestly think the ISD guys should get a raise as of late. or at least a lot of free beers from players at fanfest for all their work clearing out all the dreck from these threads. Untill next week then! I'm looking forward to those beers...
That said, 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.
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.
32. Rumor mongering is prohibited.
Rumor threads and posts which are based off no actual solid information and are designed to either troll or annoy other users will be locked and removed. These kinds of threads and posts are detrimental to the well being and spirit of the EVE Online Community, and can create undue panic among forum users, as well as adding to the workload of our moderators.
Thread reopened.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Borachon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 22:45:39 -
[1437] - Quote
As many have said, the main concern with being able to fit a long-range T2 link as currently envisioned on an interceptor is that the attacker risks very little while the defender risks a lot. Let's try and make this concrete.
Let's examine your hypothetical small nullsec alliance, since that's what we want more of. Someone (who ever could that be?) decides to troll it with interceptors to create timers that they can later send their members to contest for "content".
Some basic assumptions:
- The attacker focuses on pinging ihubs, since they're expensive and they have warning from dscan when people get close.
- Each ihub has a pirate detection array 3 and an ore detection array 3 in it, since you want a good military and industrial index to protect your sov and have time to respond to pings. The ihub and mods cost 650m (400m+150m+100m) ISK.
- It costs you 250m isk for each of the two jump freighter trips to transport the upgrades out (250m isk is how much a Black Frog JF run from Jita to X-70 costs), and 350m isk (speculating) for the freighter trip for the ihub itself. So, 1.5b isk in total for your ihub.
- Each failed attempt to ping a structure costs the attackers some amount due to the risk of losing his ship. At the high end of risk, Carniflex has speculated this could be up to 25m (100m/4) isk on average; I'd guess it's closer to 5m isk on average because dscan exists and sometimes it's just a Celestis or Maulus using ECM on you. We'll stick with Carniflex's 25m ISK number for now, however.
- Your small alliance responds well to sov pings, but some you're going to miss. This could be because they're at the end of your primetime, or there are too many at once for you to cover, or you're out with friends, or whatever. Let's say 95% of the time (19/20) you respond to a sov ping and either chase off or kill the attacker.
- An ihub timer is very dangerous because of how expensive ihubs are; large groups will show up if they happen, so you expect to win about half of them and lose about half of them.
In 19 out of 20 pings, you respond and the attacker has a chance of losing his interceptor, costing him 25m*19=475m every 20 pings. One out of every 20 pings you fail to respond and have a 50% chance of losing your 1.5b ISK ihub, costing you 750m ISK on average. Even using numbers that I think are unrealistic in terms of risk to the attacker, it is easily worth an attacker's time. To break even using Carniflex's numbers, you'd have to respond to almost 97% of all ihub pings. If the average cost of an ihub ping in an interceptor is closer to 10m, you'd have to respond to almost 99% of all ihub pings. If it's closer to 5m, you can miss only 1 sov ping out of 150.
This is the basic problem - the combination of expensive sov structures and entosis link fits that results in low risk per ping. If something like that goes live, even accepting MOA's (imo wrong) numbers, trollceptors would be toxic to sov nullsec. Ihubs would die and go (rationally) unreplaced, and most of the things which make sov nullsec actually livable (ratting, mining, exploring, etc.) would end. And with it, all the targets in sov 0.0 for alliances like MOA would go away, too.
There are lots of ways to fix this (make ihubs/upgrades smaller and cheaper, S/M/L links, nerfing base interceptor agility, link penalties to sig bloom or agility or max speed, etc.), and I have my perferences (which I stated early on). It's imperative, however, that we at least recognize the problem and work to find the best changes to entosis links fits to avoid it. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
539
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 22:47:30 -
[1438] - Quote
FYI u should all use the downtime when ISD's clear threads to make your observations clear to CCP fozzie by tweeting your ideas / observations and criticisms to him on twitter as it seems he is more likely to respond there then he is on an actual thread he created in order to entertain himself playing novelty psychiatrist in a personal sociopathic experiment.
You should all append your tweet with @CCP_Fozzie |
Erasmus Grant
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:00:36 -
[1439] - Quote
What is really unfair is how these Sov powers can control the best moons far from their sov systems. |
Erasmus Grant
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:04:44 -
[1440] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:FYI u should all use the downtime when ISD's clear threads to make your observations clear to CCP fozzie by tweeting your ideas / observations and criticisms to him on twitter as it seems he is more likely to respond there then he is on an actual thread he created in order to entertain himself playing novelty psychiatrist in a personal sociopathic experiment.
You should all append your tweet with @CCP_Fozzie
Why are you going after him if he just doing what he is told to do? |
|
|
|
|
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 |