Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
islador
Antigen.
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 16:40:59 -
[91] - Quote
So I responded to the survey already, but I've refined my thoughts a bit more. I wrote a blog post about it and set it up on reddit, but it didn't do too well. I presume that's because of the wall of text. Regardless, I thought I should post it here as well so Fozzie can get a look at it.
http://evesp.blogspot.com/2015/03/fozziesov-fozzietime-and-concurrent.html
Apparently it's too long for the character limit of this forum :( |
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 00:52:23 -
[92] - Quote
I think that alliances with members in more than one time zone should be able to create multiple prime time slots. The territory would be more vulnerable, but it should be balanced by a bonus for the increased activity in the system. In principle, the bonus should occur during prime time and/or be something to take advantage of while not actively defending. This should be a win-win for everyone. Better output from systems for the alliance as a whole. Alliance membership wouldn't have to change and can remain flexible. This would also create more opportunities for attacking for those in any timezone.
From what I understood, CCP does not want any game mechanic to benefit a larger alliance more than a smaller alliance, so any adjustment needs to come with equal benefits and detriments as the alliance size changes. For example, vulnerability would grow with more prime time slots, but more anomalies would spawn during those prime time slots. |
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
392
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 01:19:44 -
[93] - Quote
Read your blogpost, and overall it's good. However, there are two aspects of it I'd like to address:
1. Switching to or adding an LP-based income earning system in nullsec sounds good in theory, but it would backfire, and fast. As nullsecers start earning LP hand over fist, the value of items available in LP stores would plummet, lower than it already is. It also increases the reliance of nullsecers on highsec for income, as you would (likely) have to go to highsec to turn in that LP. Nullsec would have to pay large amounts of LP to make the risk worth the reward, and that reward would likely quickly plummet to lower-than highsec values, so you might as well grind in highsec, eh?
2. I don't think you intended to, but your blog post sounds like you are completely brushing off the concerns of those in the Australian time zone, and I think many (not necessarily you, but maybe) people do not realize that the concerns of the Australian time zone apply to virtually all small groups regardless of time zone. For those who don't want to read your entire blog, I quote below the relevant portions:
Quote:I'm not going to say that aussies won't have issues taking sov, but I think this isn't too big a deal. It is my understanding that right now people fear that aussies won't be able to find content as a result of FozzieTime. I think that's wrong. Players have historically repositioned themselves in game to congregate where content is found. ...
If we take the notion of players moving around for content as fact, then it is safe to say that players will shuffle themselves into whatever configuration ensures content. This means that people playing in the AU timezones will likely want to be neighbors with those playing in China, India, Japan and Vladivostok Russia. ...
The issue isn't moving around for content - many in the Aussie time zone routinely roam far and wide for content, and quite a few of us like that. Roaming 30, 50 or more systems to find someone to fight is not unusual at all for my alliance, nor is it unusual for the public roams I run during AU TZ. And if we're not in the mood to travel far, we just head to Isengard, aka Brave Newbie space. They'll always undock for a fight! My AU TZ brothers in the big boy alliances often get to throw their big boy toys at other big boys to initiate sov battles, or even just harrass and troll, and they are highly important to the continuing defense of their own space, holding off others from attacking during the quieter AU hours.
The issue with FozzieTime (love that moniker!) is that it is inflexible.
There is a high likelihood that there will VERY, VERY FEW systems for AU TZ to ATTACK, that the strategic and tactical benefits of having a strong Aussie time zone force in large(r) alliances will be negatively impacted, that we will be relegated to janitorial duties, cleaning up the mess left by the other, larger time zones, instead of how it is now - where we can actually start the fight that is finished by our numerous US/EU brethren. Aussies in the big alliances won't hardly have to spend time defending, ether, since their primetimes will likely be set during their alliances' US/EU times. That means less content for AU TZ.
In other words, many in the AU TZ are concerned - rightly so - that we will cease to be relevant.
Your thoughts that we will congregate to the areas where China, India, Japan, and Russian players are active is getting the point, but not the perspective: WHY should ANY group be forced to only play with, attack, or otherwise engage with ONLY those who happen to be in their same time zone?
This applies to all alliances in all time zones: Why should ANYONE be forced through an artificial mechanic to only attack those in their own time zone? Please do not misunderstand my emphasis on attack here - I agree and strongly support the fact that the defenders get to decide what time the defense occurs. I do not want nor do I believe that the defense of a system should be on the timezone terms of the attacker.
We are moving from a system where the initiation of taking sov is done on the terms of the attacker and the defense of sov is done on the terms of the defender, to a system where attacking AND defending is done on the terms of the defender. That is whacked out of balance.
I repeat: Ultimately, the issue with FozzieTime is that it is inflexible.
Somewhat but not entirely hypothetically, we could end up with a nullsec where the overwhelming bulk of the north is owned by US TZ alliances, who will eventually blue up and become a coalition, and the overwhelming bulk of the south is owned by EU TZ alliances who eventually blue up and become a coalition, and between jump fatigue and primetimes never bother attacking. Then two lovely little pockets of vibrant activity called ProviBlock and Brave. (N.B. I wish all of nullsec was like Providence and Catch right now - so much fun! GÖÑ)
You know, what we have right now. Just ever more deeply entrenched and even harder to take over.
I understand and, somewhat reluctantly, agree that there does need to be some sort of mechanic in place so that sov holders are not under constant clean-up duty, spending 24/7 chasing nodes.
The answer to the inflexibility problem is to make it more flexible. Let unused systems become ever-increasingly more vulnerable. Let alliances set constellation-wide timers. The idea above letting alliances willingly increase their primetime hours in exchange for bonuses - brilliant!
In other words, risks and rewards.
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
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 01:44:28 -
[94] - Quote
ckinoutdahoe wrote:"it'll be easier and simpler for smaller / newer entities."
This will NEVER happen.
Nothing will make it easier for smaller entities.......This is NOT WOW This is EVE it is suppose to be hard or it is not worth playing.
There are very large alliances that will make anything that is remotely smaller than 500 to 1k members even have a decent chance of owning space for long.
Now then:
If I plunk down 30 bill for a station egg plus billions more for upgrades then the station should be a huge pain in the ass to take. It should be ground down and not taken by some panzy timer for noobs to take down because they got the timers right.
You want my stations and my space then fight over it, burn it to the ground, but either way you will have to put time and effort into doing so........We have; We all have and have done so since as long as I can remember (2006 member of EVE)
Nothing in this game should be easy.....this is EVE.
If you want noobs in null then make null bigger....a lot bigger....then they can have space.....but they wont come anyway.... If they wanted to live in null they would be here already.
Those who do live here are members of corps that are always taking in new members or they can join a number of "rental" corps that charge a very small fee if any.
I know that CCP wants to rid EVE of rental space.....so now it will become extortion space to live in........same but different name.
It is very easy to come and live in null if you want to ...... I have seen time and again see CCP bend to the will of high sec and they still don't come to null space.
Timers in Eve for taking null space is useless. Time will tell as in any other experiment.
CCP did make mention some time back about making our own gates; maybe like a permanant type from x space to x space with a longer reach than the current JB's but maybe at far greater expense.
At least then you can reach the far reaches of eve without gates 100 jumps or 20 JB's. How much money and how old should a player be to contest your sov and assets? |
Perkin Warbeck
Black Watch Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 02:10:52 -
[95] - Quote
Greygal wrote:The tl;dr of the new time zone mechanics for me are simple:
- All of your sov structures safe from attack for 20 hours a day seems really contrary to what Eve is all about.
- The hard, inflexible window of vulnerability to attack effectively shuts out AU TZ players from meaningful engagement in sov warfare.
- The lack of any sort of mitigation on vulnerability in systems that are hardly used at all by owners. There needs to be some sort of use-it-or-lose-it aspect to the new sov system, that way unused systems open up to for small alliances to take a shot at (regardless of their time zone), such as my suggestion during the EDU radio show of systems with little/no usage having ever-increasing windows of vulnerability.
- EDIT: Also, AU TZ won't have the full 4 hour primetime window due to downtime hitting us.
There are many other concerns about the prime time window already well-expressed in the original blog post thread.
I hope this helps. Again, thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns.
GG
This. +1000. |
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 02:13:24 -
[96] - Quote
Perkin Warbeck wrote:Greygal wrote:The tl;dr of the new time zone mechanics for me are simple:
- All of your sov structures safe from attack for 20 hours a day seems really contrary to what Eve is all about.
- The hard, inflexible window of vulnerability to attack effectively shuts out AU TZ players from meaningful engagement in sov warfare.
- The lack of any sort of mitigation on vulnerability in systems that are hardly used at all by owners. There needs to be some sort of use-it-or-lose-it aspect to the new sov system, that way unused systems open up to for small alliances to take a shot at (regardless of their time zone), such as my suggestion during the EDU radio show of systems with little/no usage having ever-increasing windows of vulnerability.
- EDIT: Also, AU TZ won't have the full 4 hour primetime window due to downtime hitting us.
There are many other concerns about the prime time window already well-expressed in the original blog post thread.
I hope this helps. Again, thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns.
GG This. +1000.
Likewise. Greygal is on the money.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 02:19:58 -
[97] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:ckinoutdahoe wrote:"it'll be easier and simpler for smaller / newer entities."
This will NEVER happen.
Nothing will make it easier for smaller entities.......This is NOT WOW This is EVE it is suppose to be hard or it is not worth playing.
There are very large alliances that will make anything that is remotely smaller than 500 to 1k members even have a decent chance of owning space for long.
Now then:
If I plunk down 30 bill for a station egg plus billions more for upgrades then the station should be a huge pain in the ass to take. It should be ground down and not taken by some panzy timer for noobs to take down because they got the timers right.
You want my stations and my space then fight over it, burn it to the ground, but either way you will have to put time and effort into doing so........We have; We all have and have done so since as long as I can remember (2006 member of EVE)
Nothing in this game should be easy.....this is EVE.
If you want noobs in null then make null bigger....a lot bigger....then they can have space.....but they wont come anyway.... If they wanted to live in null they would be here already.
Those who do live here are members of corps that are always taking in new members or they can join a number of "rental" corps that charge a very small fee if any.
I know that CCP wants to rid EVE of rental space.....so now it will become extortion space to live in........same but different name.
It is very easy to come and live in null if you want to ...... I have seen time and again see CCP bend to the will of high sec and they still don't come to null space.
Timers in Eve for taking null space is useless. Time will tell as in any other experiment.
CCP did make mention some time back about making our own gates; maybe like a permanant type from x space to x space with a longer reach than the current JB's but maybe at far greater expense.
At least then you can reach the far reaches of eve without gates 100 jumps or 20 JB's. How much money and how old should a player be to contest your sov and assets?
Wrong question: the question should be how much should any player commit to capturing your space. Right now you need a lot of expensive toys or a lot of mates. BNI proved that sov is conquerable by anyone with the will and the mates. New sov will be boring FW style solo play for the most part in cheap disposable ships. That shows a distinct lack of commitment to me.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
287
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 06:21:26 -
[98] - Quote
Artificial time zone mechanics are an unnecessary wall, also the people at CCP should learn to cater to existing players first and people that may or may not come back second. Assets are there to be risked, something CCP currently believe is a god given right for players to stockpile without risk in null-sec which makes null-sec pretty laughable.
There is space called wormhole space, Fozzie, something you should learn from. At the moment it seems that CCP are building on top of the good idea that is EvE null-sec without building anything significant themselves. Jump fatigue and tech 3 destroyers are fine as scaffolding but there is at the moment nothing that makes null-sec truly desirable. Artificial time zone shields, infrastructure hubs, entosis links and tcus. Find a way to remove those otherwise you will probably find people complaining about sov in a few years time.
Maybe it will all work out. |
Ambrosse Brutus
Cyborg Infomorph Technologies Stain Confederation
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 06:25:32 -
[99] - Quote
My thought is that the current plan to have a 4 hour window every day needs to change. Many of the reasons have already been mentioned.
Instead, the 'prime time' would be better if it occurred less frequently but for a longer period. Even better would be too remove the idea altogether, and instead allow the defender to set when the capture event occurs similar to the way pocos function, but instead of setting a time, you would set a day of the week. This would give players who may be busy during the week for example the ability to still capture and defend when they have free time.
To attack the structure initially could be made harder this way, with the entosis link needing to be applied for more time in order to trigger the timer for the capture event. |
ImageQuest
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 06:36:34 -
[100] - Quote
I think that idea you proposed with ethonosis link is decent. +/-2hours gives it nice flexibility so its not the same time always. If it's publicly visible it allowes alliance to decide what would be a good target for their invasion. 96hours rule so they dont swap it as they please. |
|
ImageQuest
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 06:38:37 -
[101] - Quote
Also Use it or lose it- would be ********. You can't just lose systems because you dont use them. There needs to come somebody to actually claim it, even though it should be way easier. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
237
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 08:44:20 -
[102] - Quote
I've given my thoughts, and an example of the sort of emergent gameplay/content generation that comes from the 'complexity' of strontium timers (aka. when timers go `bad'..)
I think they are still the best of the 'TZ safety net' mechanics available.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
237
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 13:21:15 -
[103] - Quote
II realise this thread is a high-level 'collecting information' one, but I've prepared a (detailed) amendment to strontium 'mechanics' to protect timezones, but one which requires active participation to do so.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5582838#post5582838
Basically apply the law of radioactive decay to strontium and expand its use in timers.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
119
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 19:13:56 -
[104] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:ckinoutdahoe wrote:"it'll be easier and simpler for smaller / newer entities."
This will NEVER happen.
Nothing will make it easier for smaller entities.......This is NOT WOW This is EVE it is suppose to be hard or it is not worth playing.
There are very large alliances that will make anything that is remotely smaller than 500 to 1k members even have a decent chance of owning space for long.
Now then:
If I plunk down 30 bill for a station egg plus billions more for upgrades then the station should be a huge pain in the ass to take. It should be ground down and not taken by some panzy timer for noobs to take down because they got the timers right.
You want my stations and my space then fight over it, burn it to the ground, but either way you will have to put time and effort into doing so........We have; We all have and have done so since as long as I can remember (2006 member of EVE)
Nothing in this game should be easy.....this is EVE.
If you want noobs in null then make null bigger....a lot bigger....then they can have space.....but they wont come anyway.... If they wanted to live in null they would be here already.
Those who do live here are members of corps that are always taking in new members or they can join a number of "rental" corps that charge a very small fee if any.
I know that CCP wants to rid EVE of rental space.....so now it will become extortion space to live in........same but different name.
It is very easy to come and live in null if you want to ...... I have seen time and again see CCP bend to the will of high sec and they still don't come to null space.
Timers in Eve for taking null space is useless. Time will tell as in any other experiment.
CCP did make mention some time back about making our own gates; maybe like a permanant type from x space to x space with a longer reach than the current JB's but maybe at far greater expense.
At least then you can reach the far reaches of eve without gates 100 jumps or 20 JB's. How much money and how old should a player be to contest your sov and assets? Wrong question: the question should be how much should any player commit to capturing your space. Right now you need a lot of expensive toys or a lot of mates. BNI proved that sov is conquerable by anyone with the will and the mates. New sov will be boring FW style solo play for the most part in cheap disposable ships. That shows a distinct lack of commitment to me. I guess we will just ignore the fact that BNI was given permission from the existing coalitions to take Catch. But did BNI solo take Catch with its mass numbers and cheap ships? Nope. NC. came in to help grind all the sov so we can take it. |
Manurtia
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 19:28:48 -
[105] - Quote
So, I answered the survey.
What I don't like about the current system, is that Sov is kind of a big deal. It has a major affect on the alliance as a whole. It SHOULD require significant effort to remove an alliance's hold on a system.
That being said, a new system should take the best of the current system, and integrate with it a subset of the proposed system.
Example:
Alliance A claims 30 systems. Systems 1-20 are heavily used, but buffer systems 21-30 are rarely used.
Hostile Alliance B wants to wipe Alliance A off the map. They send in small fleets to utilize the proposed system to claim ownership of Systems 21-30. Alliance A and Alliance B power struggle over those systems until either one gives up trying to take them. Since occupancy is low to non-existent to start, it becomes a test of mettle.
Having won Systems 21-30, Alliance B now decides to take on the core systems of Alliance A. Since Systems 1-20 are heavily used, there is an occupancy bonus covering the systems. This will require a Sovereignty Blockade Unit to be deployed, per hostile alliance. This allows Alliance B to start the process of generating a negative occupancy by the same actions that increase occupancy in claimed systems. Once the occupancy level is reduced to 0, Alliance B can then start the process of claiming the system, just like Systems 21-30. This requires Alliance B to be dedicated to the process of removing the claim of Alliance A. The occupancy bonus could be a % decrease in the effectiveness of Alliance B's efforts to generate negative occupancy, which would also change effectiveness as Alliance A's occupancy bonus is reduced. |
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
101
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 01:15:29 -
[106] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:ckinoutdahoe wrote:"it'll be easier and simpler for smaller / newer entities."
This will NEVER happen.
Nothing will make it easier for smaller entities.......This is NOT WOW This is EVE it is suppose to be hard or it is not worth playing.
There are very large alliances that will make anything that is remotely smaller than 500 to 1k members even have a decent chance of owning space for long.
Now then:
If I plunk down 30 bill for a station egg plus billions more for upgrades then the station should be a huge pain in the ass to take. It should be ground down and not taken by some panzy timer for noobs to take down because they got the timers right.
You want my stations and my space then fight over it, burn it to the ground, but either way you will have to put time and effort into doing so........We have; We all have and have done so since as long as I can remember (2006 member of EVE)
Nothing in this game should be easy.....this is EVE.
If you want noobs in null then make null bigger....a lot bigger....then they can have space.....but they wont come anyway.... If they wanted to live in null they would be here already.
Those who do live here are members of corps that are always taking in new members or they can join a number of "rental" corps that charge a very small fee if any.
I know that CCP wants to rid EVE of rental space.....so now it will become extortion space to live in........same but different name.
It is very easy to come and live in null if you want to ...... I have seen time and again see CCP bend to the will of high sec and they still don't come to null space.
Timers in Eve for taking null space is useless. Time will tell as in any other experiment.
CCP did make mention some time back about making our own gates; maybe like a permanant type from x space to x space with a longer reach than the current JB's but maybe at far greater expense.
At least then you can reach the far reaches of eve without gates 100 jumps or 20 JB's. How much money and how old should a player be to contest your sov and assets? Wrong question: the question should be how much should any player commit to capturing your space. Right now you need a lot of expensive toys or a lot of mates. BNI proved that sov is conquerable by anyone with the will and the mates. New sov will be boring FW style solo play for the most part in cheap disposable ships. That shows a distinct lack of commitment to me. I guess we will just ignore the fact that BNI was given permission from the existing coalitions to take Catch. But did BNI solo take Catch with its mass numbers and cheap ships? Nope. NC. came in to help grind all the sov so we can take it. I was one of the many sorry bastards that ground his way across all of Fountain, Delve, Period Basis and Querious in a bomber. Fountain was contested by NC. & PL (and Test on occasion), NC. giving you permission and helping just made it easier. Capturing sov in cheap, disposable sub caps can be done. Of course stabbing oneself in the face with a spoon may be a more entertaining game, but at least I got something out of capturing Fountain.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Alexis Nightwish
127
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 17:20:02 -
[107] - Quote
Reposting the best idea I've seen regarding TZ mechanics:
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.
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
119
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 19:52:59 -
[108] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Reposting the best idea I've seen regarding TZ mechanics: 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. EDIT: Survey feedback: The language used is somewhat confusing ("If applicable, please describe the specific aspects of the new proposal that prevent it from meeting your needs more effectively." <-- this is oddly worded IMO). Also, why just a survey? You put up a thread about the Entosis link and got a mega fuckton of feedback. Some of it was even good! Why not do the same with this? Wouldn't the work around be to just shard all large alliances into smaller alliances for each constellation and then have them all set to the same time zone? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1950
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 20:34:21 -
[109] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Wouldn't the work around be to just shard all large alliances into smaller alliances for each constellation and then have them all set to the same time zone?
Except then you can't 'defend' the structures because you count as an attacker. So.... Not really. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
119
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 21:48:06 -
[110] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Wouldn't the work around be to just shard all large alliances into smaller alliances for each constellation and then have them all set to the same time zone?
Except then you can't 'defend' the structures because you count as an attacker. So.... Not really. Interesting. |
|
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
398
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 01:33:16 -
[111] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Wouldn't the work around be to just shard all large alliances into smaller alliances for each constellation and then have them all set to the same time zone?
Except then you can't 'defend' the structures because you count as an attacker. So.... Not really. Interesting.
Yup, only the defenders can capture nodes that will count towards their control level. Anyone not in their alliance who captures a node counts towards the attacker's control level.
However, that doesn't mean your out-of-alliance friends and family can't attack the attackers, protect the defender's entosis link ships, provide logi and ewar support, and whatever their friends/family/coalition mates need to keep from losing your space
Your out-of-alliance/coalition mates can also halt the progress on attackers' entosis links by putting a link on the same node.
I expect we'll see some third-party shenanigans, too, where others show up to a battle to attack the attackers, or the defenders, or both, depending upon their mood, just because they can... ;)
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
|
Anthar Thebess
962
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 14:56:32 -
[112] - Quote
Remove all timers : Agree But we need a carrot for people to fight for the space. You only can loose assets when you loose access to a station. Simple solution : 1. Make all stations dock-able at any time. 2. Only owning alliance can use services. 3. Make random 16-32h timer on each structure , so every one can get 4 am timer.
Upgrades? Link system upgrades to payout. So if you don't own Ihub all bounty is reduced by 1/3rd
TCU? Fuel cost on towers , and extended RF timers for them.
Still if CCP do not like all those ideas, maybe only apply the service limitation to alliance only members. No more by standings , as a blue to owning alliance you can for example dock , but all services are blocked from your access.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12407
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 15:10:19 -
[113] - Quote
Thanks for the responses so far everyone! We have over 2000 responses so far and we want even more.
We've put together localized versions of the survey in Russian and German to widen the net further, those can be found here.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
699
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 20:19:53 -
[114] - Quote
in retrospect adding the "are you currently a sov haver" question makes it p easy for y'all to discard the responses that answer "currently yes"
after all "entosis" is a term used to talk about fighting cancer, makes you think |
Malcaz
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 21:58:48 -
[115] - Quote
Horrible mechanic. This way, only people from the same timezone can compete. It is very hard to take sov from people who have large numbers in a specific rare timezone and it is very hard for them to take sov from the majority, which are on different timezones. It also gives issues for alliances with lots of people in more than one timezone, because they won't have a lot of content. Also it will be abused by alliances who set their "timezone" to a time specifically to make it impossible for other alliances to attack them properly, regardless of their own timezone. |
Perkin Warbeck
Black Watch Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
194
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 22:51:32 -
[116] - Quote
Dear Perkin Warbeck
I write in response to your e-mail of xx March 2015 regarding the proposed sovereignty changes.
As a valued subscriber to EvE Online we recognise that the proposed time zone mechanic will treat the residents of Australia as 'second class citizens'. Putting aside for a moment that we believe Australians probably are second class citizens, we have decided to offer you a discounted subscription of Gé¼1 per month (which I believe equates to 347 of your Australian dollars).
We hope this helps. However there is little we can do about the other concerns you raised in your e-mail, including the internet speed, super dangerous flora and fauna, climate change or the accent.
Many thanks
CCP Fozzie |
Lyckeus Morre
Straight Edged Mercantile Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 22:59:55 -
[117] - Quote
Answered, but since I lack SOV exp and i'm just over a year old this month, not much I could offer in the way of opinions. Only real points i brought up was Titans vs Structures (now they are just giant bridges?) and the possibility of TZ segregation occurring.
So hope something helps
o/ cheers
If your guns like us more, chances are, our guns wont hate you any less...
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
888
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 00:16:39 -
[118] - Quote
Perkin Warbeck wrote:Dear Perkin Warbeck
I write in response to your e-mail of xx March 2015 regarding the proposed sovereignty changes.
As a valued subscriber to EvE Online we recognise that the proposed time zone mechanic will treat the residents of Australia as 'second class citizens'. Putting aside for a moment that we believe Australians probably are second class citizens, we have decided to offer you a discounted subscription of Gé¼1 per month (which I believe equates to 347 of your Australian dollars).
We hope this helps. However there is little we can do about the other concerns you raised in your e-mail, including the internet speed, super dangerous flora and fauna, climate change or the accent.
Many thanks
Fozzie
Was good for a laugh and reminded me of this:
"I don't mean to put down your black widow spider, but the funnelweb spider can kill a man in eight seconds, just by lookin' at him."
The more I think about the time zone aspect of this new system, the less I like it. Just make the attacker commit more to the initial push (make it fit on battle cruisers and above), then make structures able to be hit initially at any time. Have them come out at one of two four-hour blocks the defense selects.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Rob Kashuken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
71
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 01:23:11 -
[119] - Quote
You know... thinking about the TZ thing more, especially in terms of the AUTZ, the situation is readily exploitable through CCP's own system maintenance mechanics.
Primetime AUTZ is when DT occurs. This naturally makes the window shorter - from 4 hours to a $random time anywhere from 3.5hrs to 0 hours effective gameplay, largely dependent on factors outside of gameplay.
Given that often after a major patch, and at semi-regular system maintenance windows, there have often been times when DT has been extended for 4+ hours.
I can readily see a sov war scenario effectively being completely reset owing to CCP systems maintenance. |
Haijuswo Kup
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 01:56:20 -
[120] - Quote
That survey started to feel quite redundant after the third question asking me about things I already answered in the first two.
Whatever you do CCP, just try to tie any changes in to the lore somehow. It would just be silly to make these huge sweeping changes and not have any reason for it when this game and it's game play are already ridiculously deep. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |