| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Captain Phil
EMPPH Special Operations
1
   |
Posted - 2015.03.15 18:44:18 -
[1] - Quote
I think we should remove it, but that's because I don't own jack squat anyway. The implications are obvious, but I have a few questions on the matter:
Was there ever a time that structures existed without reinforcement?
Do you think it would be virtually impossible to hold sovereignty or own structures without it?
How would it impact capital construction?
Would major alliances simply shrink, or disappear entirely?
I'm a nobody in EvE, but I feel like reinforcement plays a bigger role in discouraging a POS attack than the POS defenses do.
What place does a 41 hour immunity have in a game where scamming, espionage, awox, and suicide ganks are legitimate?
What right do I have to own something in EvE if I do not have the manpower and TZ coverage needed to protect it? |
Captain Phil
EMPPH Special Operations
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 19:11:02 -
[2] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:It would be impossible to actually defend any assets.
Especially if you don't have full TZ coverage.
Why would you think that only the biggest groups should even be able to put up a POS?
I'm thinking more along the lines of assets per capita, and simply shrinking the number (which appears to be the goal of sovereignty mechanics changes). The "more" would have more, as usual.
The difference being that rather than adding another layer of mechanics, we simply allow EvE to do what it does best.
Additionally, the goals are ultimately the same:
Quote:As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid... neither side is making significant progress until the fight is resolved.
If you win the fight, you keep your stuff. Same same.
Quote:The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible.
Deploy or destroy. This is what I consider simple. |
Captain Phil
EMPPH Special Operations
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 19:13:35 -
[3] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:no major alliances would just get bigger since you would be forced to join them or be unable to hold anything
as far as micro gameplay goes timers cause fights as it gives both sides a time to show up
your idea just makes it so bashes are nothing more than that since the defenders are not going to be able to get a defense up in the 45 min it takes to grind out a tower
Given our current style of play, you are correct. Player tactics would have to change, yes. |
Captain Phil
EMPPH Special Operations
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 19:18:02 -
[4] - Quote
Murkar Omaristos wrote:Let's not 
"I woke up Saturday morning and... I have no more things."
I understand. Consider this:
About a year ago I was moving all my things in an Orca. I decided to make a pit stop in Jita. "Burn Jita"? Whatever, I said.
I learned a lot that day. Needless to say, nothing is impossible for the players who put their minds to it. |
Captain Phil
EMPPH Special Operations
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 19:22:55 -
[5] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:And how are you going to win the fight to keep your stuff if you're an EU based alliance and some Australians come kill everything you own at 5 AM?
Recruit Australians.
Whenever I think about what can and can't be accomplished in EvE, I ask myself "What would GoonSwarm do?"
They would make a plan, and follow through. |
Captain Phil
EMPPH Special Operations
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 20:21:03 -
[6] - Quote
Quote:Well, we wouldn't propose a mechanic that made it impossible for anyone other than us to hold space for one thing. This would hurt us, yes, but it'd also completely cripple anyone smaller.
Why is that good for the game?
Hurt, cripple, large, and small are relative terms. By today's standards, things would be drastically different. Owning three systems and ten POSes might be considered "large" without reinforcement.
I argue reinforcement hurts the little guys, because it limits their options for warfare. A fixed time limit does not scale proportionately, and gives the advantage to the larger force who is more capable of organizing a quick response.
Admittedly, my experience is severely limited; I do not know what a small force can really accomplish under the current system. |
Captain Phil
EMPPH Special Operations
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 20:45:28 -
[7] - Quote
Quote:If you are a small group, then you time your stuff to exit reinforcement at a time you are actually going to be online to defend it. How, exactly, does that hurt you when compared with just flat out losing it with no chance at all of fighting back?
Because being the smaller inherently means that you are not able to successfully defend your assets [against a superior force]. Yes, there are things that can be done, of course. But these same things can be accomplished with or without reinforcement. The better force will win, the lesser force will lose.
I've been on the losing end before. The better force came, defeated us, and had to wait for the timer. All I could do was watch.
Quote:If you have no experience with timers, why are you proposing their removal?
Because the theme is the same throughout. I did not receive a 40 hour warning when I flew my Orca into the gank fest that was Jita (well I technically did when I read the forum post days earlier, but that's besides the point). I knew the risks, I made a decision, and I faced the consequences.
It should be (I think) the same with POSes and Sovereignty. |
Captain Phil
EMPPH Special Operations
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 21:07:46 -
[8] - Quote
Quote:You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Ok
I will take the information I learned here today and use it to find a way to make reinforce timers work for me.
Thank you all for your time. |
| |
|